What’s Hot on CanLII This Week

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of June 22 – 30.

1. Clements v. Clements 2012 SCC 32

[1] The parties to this appeal, Mr. and Mrs. Clements, were motor bike enthusiasts. August 7th, 2004, found them en route from their home in Prince George, British Columbia, to visit their daughter in Kananaskis, Alberta. The weather was wet. Mr. Clements was driving the bike and Mrs. Clements was riding behind on the passenger seat. The bike was about 100 pounds overloaded. Unbeknownst to Mr. Clements, a nail had punctured the bike’s rear tire. Though Mr. Clements was travelling in a 100 km/h zone, he accelerated to at least 120 km/h in order to pass a car. As he crossed the centre line to commence the passing manoeuvre, the nail fell out, the rear tire deflated, and the bike began to wobble. Mr. Clements was unable to bring the bike under control and it crashed, throwing Mrs. Clements off. Mrs. Clements suffered a severe traumatic brain injury. She now sues Mr. Clements, claiming that her injury was caused by his negligence in the operation of the bike.

2. Brandiferri v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance, et al. 2012 ONSC 2206

[1] On August 8, 2000, there was a fire at the plaintiffs’ home at 34 Granite Street, in Woodbridge, Ontario. The garage and its contents were destroyed and smoke penetrated the house. In one action the plaintiffs claim that Strone Construction is liable for the deficient remedial construction work on their house; in the other action the plaintiffs claim that their insurer, the Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company is responsible for Strone’s poor work. They also claim for the loss of personal property and for additional living expenses (“ALE”) that they incurred. The actions were tried together without a jury.

3. Galganov v. Russell (Township) 2012 ONCA 410

[1] This appeal respecting costs was heard immediately following the appeal in C52704 and these reasons are being released concurrently with the decision in that appeal.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Fortier c. Mattel Canada Inc. 2008 QCCS 2697

[1] Le tribunal est saisi d’une requête des défenderesses en litispendance et subsidiairement, en suspension d’instance, basée sur les articles 165(1), 2, 20 et 46 C.p.c., à laquelle le demandeur s’oppose.

Comments are closed.