What’s Hot on CanLII This Week

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of March 7 – 14.

♨ 1. Bedford v. Canada 2010 ONSC 4264

[1] There has been a long-standing debate in this country and elsewhere about the subject of prostitution. The only consensus that exists is that there is no consensus on the issue. Governments in Canada, as well as internationally, have studied the topic and produced recommendations ranging from creating laws aimed at protecting individuals, families and communities by promulgating tough criminal laws to decriminalizing or legalizing prostitution. Other legal solutions look at the reasons for the existence of prostitution in our society and emphasize the need for social and economic responses. None of the schemes proposed are without controversy.

[2] This case demonstrates the tension that exists around the moral, social and historical perspectives on the issue of prostitution and the effect of certain criminal law provisions on the constitutional rights of those affected. It highlights the role of the courts and their relationship to the other branches of government.

♨ 2. Ronald Gunraj v. Chris Cyr 2012 ONSC 1609

[5] The Gunrajs. . . . acquired the property on January 4, 2010, but were unable to develop it as planned. They resold it 11 months later for almost $400,000 less than they paid for it. They sued everybody involved to recover their loss, including Mr. Chalmers and his firm. They have been sued for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.

[6] On this application, Mr. Chalmers and his firm move for summary judgment dismissing the actions against them.

♨ 3. Ellis v. Fallios-Guthierrez 2012 ONSC 1670

[1] The plaintiff, David Ellis, has brought an action against the defendant, Orlex Saul Fallios-Guthierrez, for battery, claiming that he suffered significant physical and emotional injuries. The plaintiff sustained these injuries during a fight between the two men that took place in the defendant’s basement apartment in the early morning hours of January 20, 2006. The plaintiff seeks damages in the range of $90,000 and $130,000. The parties have provided contradictory versions of the critical events that took place that night.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Langevin 2012 QCCS 613

[1] Sylvio Langevin réclame la propriété de la planète Terre[1]. Dans un autre dossier entrepris le même jour, il réclame celle des planètes Mercure, Vénus, Jupiter, Saturne et Uranus, ainsi que des quatre grosses lunes de Jupiter[2].

[2] À l’audience, le requérant souhaite amender ce second recours pour y ajouter ses revendications sur Neptune et Pluton, ainsi que sur l’espace entre chaque planète, à la grandeur de la galaxie[3].