What’s Hot on CanLII This Week

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of September 1 – 8.

1. Legal Aid Ontario v. Gertler 2012 ONSC 5000

[1] This is a motion brought by the defendants pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (the “Rules”). The defendants seek an order and directions with respect to the cross-examination of certain witnesses put forward by the plaintiff in response to a pending motion brought by the defendants for an order dismissing the plaintiff’s action (the “Pending Motion”). . . .

2. Moore v. Bertuzzi 2012 ONSC 4964

[1] This endorsement deals with the costs of a motion heard on June 11, 2012 to set aside or vary an order made by me on January 4, 2012 to compel two neuropsychological examinations of the plaintiff Steve Moore, one on behalf of the defendant Bertuzzi and one on behalf of the Orca Bay defendants. When the order permitting each defendant to conduct a defence neuropsychological examination was made on January 4th the court and the plaintiffs were under the misapprehension that the defendants remained adverse in interest. Three weeks later it was revealed that four months earlier the defendants had signed a settlement agreement in which they agreed to end their respective crossclaims against each other and proportionally share any damages awarded in agreed percentages, thus ending their adversity on liability. . . .

3. Saputo Inc. et al v. Dare Holdings Ltd. et al 2012 ONSC 4981

[1] The applicants (“Saputo”) bring this application to set aside the valuation of the issued and outstanding common shares of Dare Holdings Limited performed by BDO. The valuation was conducted pursuant to a unanimous shareholders’ agreement (“USA”) as part of an acquisition of Saputo’s 21% interest in Dare by Serad Holdings Limited which held 79% of Dare. The applicants contend that BDO failed to follow the requirements of the USA resulting in a significant undervaluation of Dare.

The most-consulted French-language decision was an oldie but a goodie R. c. Sault Ste. Marie [1978] 2 RCS 1299, showing three times the normal activity for a French-language #1.

Dans le présent pourvoi, la Cour doit examiner des infractions diversement appelées infractions «statutaires», «réglementaires», «contre le bien-être public», «de responsabilité absolue» ou «de responsabilité stricte». Ces infractions ne sont pas criminelles au plein sens du terme, mais sont prohibées dans l’intérêt public. (Sherras v. De Rutzen[3]) Bien qu’appliquées comme lois pénales par le truchement de la procédure criminelle, ces infractions sont essentiellement de nature civile et pourraient fort bien être considérées comme une branche du droit administratif à laquelle les principes traditionnels du droit criminel ne s’appliquent que de façon limitée. Elles se rapportent à des questions quotidiennes, telles les contraventions à la circulation, la vente de nourriture contaminée, les violations de lois sur les boissons alcooliques et autres infractions semblables. Le présent pourvoi a pour objet la pollution.

Comments are closed.