Canada’s online legal magazine.
Solo lawyer start-up guide
LexisNexis Legal Products

Archive for ‘Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII’ Feature

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

  1. Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571

    [1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers;

. . . [more]
Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

  1. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board 2013 HRTO 440

    [1] This is an Application made under s. 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), dated May 18, 2009. The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on November 24, 2004.
    [2] In a prior decision, 2012 HRTO 350 (CanLII), 2012 HRTO 350

. . . [more]
Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

  1. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board 2013 HRTO 440

    [2] In a prior decision, 2012 HRTO 350 (CanLII), 2012 HRTO 350 (“decision on liability”), I found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant because of disability contrary to ss. 5 and 9 of the Code, by failing to accommodate the applicant’s disability-related needs from April 2003 and then by terminating her employment on July 9,

. . . [more]
Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

  1. R. v. Vu 2013 SCC 60

    [1] In this case, the digital and Internet age meets the law of search and seizure. The encounter raises a novel issue: does the traditional legal framework require some updating in order to protect the unique privacy interests that are at stake in computer searches? The traditional legal framework holds that once police obtain a warrant to

. . . [more]
Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

  1. Pro Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation 2013 SCC 57

    [1] It is no simple task to assess liability and apportion damages in situations where the wrongdoer and the harmed parties are separated by a long and complex chain of distribution, involving many parties, purchasers, resellers and intermediaries. Such is the problem presented by indirect purchaser actions in which downstream individual purchasers seek

. . . [more]
Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

  1. Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571

    [1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers;

. . . [more]
Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

  1. Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571

    [1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers;

. . . [more]
Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

  1. Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571

    [1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers;

. . . [more]
Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this past week:

  1. Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571

    1. This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers;

. . . [more]
Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

  1. Exposoft Solutions Inc. (Re) 2013 ONSC 5798

    [1] This was a motion which should never have been. It also involved the smallest amount of money I have encountered to date in a Commercial List matter – less than $5,000. But, being a motion brought in the Toronto Region, about two inches of materials were served and filed, and four cases handed up during

. . . [more]
Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

  1. Garacci v. Ross 2013 ONSC 5627

    [1] The defendant brings this motion for an order that the plaintiff Christina Garacci (“Christina”) produce approximately 1100 photographs located on the private portion of her Facebook account and related profile pages. The defendant argues that the photographs are relevant to matters in issue in this action and ought to be produced. Christina opposes the relief requested

. . . [more]
Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

  1. Berry et al v. Pulley et al, 2013 CanLII 54779 (ON SC)

    [1] This action was commenced in 1997, certified as a class proceeding in 2001, and tried in 2011. The Plaintiff class consisted of 171 Air Ontario pilots, five of whom were appointed as representative Plaintiffs. The Defendant class consisted of approximately 1,617 Air Canada pilots. The Plaintiffs alleged that members of

. . . [more]
Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII