What’s Hot on CanLII This Week

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of April 1 – 10.

♨ 1. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC v. Teng 2012 ONSC 1927

[1] The Defendant Teng resides in Ontario. The Plaintiff operates a hotel and casino in Las Vegas, Nevada. Teng applied for and was granted a line of credit from the casino totalling $300,000. In June and July of 2010 Teng drew on this line of credit for the full amount of $300,000 and signed two markers in the form of cheques for that amount. When Teng checked out of the Plaintiff’s hotel in August of 2010 he had not repaid the $300,000. The amount now owing is $290,000 plus interest.

[2] Is Ontario the appropriate forum for this application?

[3] Is the Plaintiff entitled to summary judgment for the outstanding principal plus interest?

♨ 2. 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.

♨ 3. Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford 2012 ONCA 186

[3] At issue in this case is the constitutionality of three provisions of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, which form the core of Parliament’s response to prostitution:

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

[1] Sylvio Langevin réclame la propriété de la planète Terre. 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] 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.

But running a close second was Industries Lassonde inc. c. Oasis d’Olivia inc. 2012 QCCA 593

[3] En 2006, d’avis qu’il y avait risque de confusion avec ses marques de commerce, les appelantes intentent des procédures en injonction permanente, en remboursement de profits et en dommages « exemplaires et punitifs », contre l’intimée, qui utilise la marque de commerce « Olivia’s Oasis » en association avec des produits de soins corporels, dont des savons, et qui demandait, à l’époque, son enregistrement (obtenu en juillet 2010).

[4] Par jugement rendu en août 2010, la juge rejette la procédure des appelantes d’avis qu’il n’y a aucun risque de confusion.