What’s Hot on CanLII This Week

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of November 14 – 21.

1. Association of Justice Counsel v. Canada (Attorney General) 2011 ONSC 6435

[1] Much has been and will continue to be written about the constitutionality of the Expenditure Relief Act (the “ERA”).[1] This application involves a challenge by the Association of Justice Counsel (the “AJC”). It was initiated because the ERA impedes efforts by lawyers in the federal public service to address long existing concerns about salary.

2. Bedford v. Canada 2010 ONSC 4264

[538] I find that the danger faced by prostitutes greatly outweighs any harm which may be faced by other members of the public. I, therefore, do not consider that a temporary suspension of a declaration of invalidity is appropriate in this case.

3. Goma v. Raghunandan 2011 ONSC 6598

Realizing that the limitation period for advancing a claim for contribution and indemnity set out in section 18(1) of the Limitations Act, 2002[1] (“Limitations Act”) had passed and that a separate action or counterclaim for contribution could not be advanced, the defendants seek to advance such claim by way of equitable set-off and assert that the limitation period in section 18(1) does not apply.

The most-consulted decision in French is Chocolat Lamontagne inc. c. Humeur Groupe-conseil inc. 2010 QCCS 3301 [English translation]

[La demanderesse] reproche à la défenderesse, Humeur Groupe Conseil inc. (Humeur), une entreprise faisant affaire dans le même domaine et une compétitrice commerciale directe, d’avoir utilisé sa marque de commerce auprès du moteur de recherche de Google pour détourner sa clientèle vers son site Internet, ce qui constitue, selon elle, une forme de concurrence déloyale et illégale.

[See also Private Career Training Institutions Agency v. Vancouver Career College (Burnaby) Inc. 2011 BCCA 69 (which cracked the top ten) on the same issue.

Comments are closed.