What’s Hot on CanLII This Week

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of March 14 – 20.

♨ 1. Romspen Investment Corp. v. 6176666 Canada Ltée. 2012 ONSC 1727

[1] I suppose that on a sunny, unusually warm, mid-March day one should be mellow and accept, without complaint, the systemic failures and delay of this Court’s document management system. The problem is that from the perspective of the members of the public who use this Court, delays caused by our antiquated, wholly-inadequate document management system impose unnecessary, but all too real, costs on them. And yet the entity that operates that part of the Court’s administration system – the Court Services Division of the Ministry of the Attorney General – seems completely indifferent to the unnecessary costs it is causing to the members of the public who use our Court.

[2] Let me tell a little story. It is not an unusual story. Indeed, it is a common story in this court. But the story illustrates an important point, a point which judges, as the ultimate stewards of the health of our system of justice, must be vigilant in keeping on the radar screens of those who hold the purse strings of this Court’s administration system.

♨ 2. Kerr v. Baranow 2011 SCC 10

[6] These appeals require us to resolve five main issues. The first concerns the role of the “common intention” resulting trust in claims by domestic partners. In my view, it is time to recognize that the “common intention” approach to resulting trust has no further role to play in the resolution of property claims by domestic partners on the breakdown of their relationship.

♨ 3. R. v. Fleming 2012 CanLII 8907 (NL PC)

2. As a society, we are trying to preserve wetlands and ecologically sensitive areas. One of the ways that we are doing this is to geographically limit the use of all terrain vehicles (ATVs). Different jurisdictions have different ways of doing this, which may reflect different weights being given to competing interests in each jurisdiction. Let me illustrate this by giving as an example the different legislative and regulatory provisions between Nova Scotia and this Province.

The most frequently consulted French-language decision was, again for another week, 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].