What’s Hot on CanLII This Week

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of September 8 – 16.

1. R. v. Petrovic 2012 ONCJ 562

[1] Under Certificate of Offence no. 1260-7327319A. the defendant, Bozo Petrovic stands charged that he on the 19th day of August, 2011 at 2:15 p.m., at northbound Appleby Line at Dundas Street, in the City of Burlington, “did commit the offence of drive motor vehicle while operating a handheld communication device, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act, section 78.1(1)”.

2. St. Lewis v. Rancourt 2012 ONSC 5053

[1] This is a continuance of the June 20, 2012 motion brought by Mr. Rancourt to address refusals to answer questions by the plaintiff Joanne St. Lewis (“St. Lewis”). Beaudoin J. had completed and decided Mr. Rancourt’s (“Rancourt”) refusals motion with regards to representatives of the University of Ottawa (“University”) and had adjourned the balance of the motion with regards to refusals by St. Lewis to July 24, 2012.

[2] On July 24, 2012, Rancourt alleged that Beaudoin J. was not impartial and asked him to recuse himself based on his having established a bursary at the University to keep the memory of his deceased son alive and to assist him in dealing with his grief. Rancourt also raised the fact that Beaudoin J.’s deceased son had previously worked at the law firm representing the University before his untimely death. Beaudoin J. held that he did not have a conflict of interest and was not biased, but given the allegations made by Rancourt involving his personal grieving over the loss of his son, he was unable to continue and decide the remaining matters involving Mr. Rancourt with impartiality given the statements made by Mr. Rancourt on July 24, 2012.

3. George Weston Limited v. Domtar Inc. 2012 ONSC 5001

[5] Since both motions raise important procedural issues about motions to strike, or stay, summary judgment motions, I have decided to release one set of reasons for both motions. Part I of these Reasons will address common principles concerning motions to strike. Parts II and III will apply those principles to the particular facts of the motion in each action.

The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Ibanescu 2011 QCCA 2304.

[7] Toute personne qui conduit un véhicule alors que ses facultés sont affaiblies par l’alcool ou des drogues constitue une dangereuse menace pour autrui, incluant ses propres passagers. . . .

[10] Certes, l’interprétation de ces dispositions du Code criminel doit toujours se faire dans le respect des grands principes du droit criminel, dont ceux prévus à la Charte, mais les tribunaux doivent se garder d’adopter des approches interprétatives qui stérilisent de facto l’application des mesures adoptées par le législateur, mesures que la Cour suprême, dans R. c. Elias, supra, considère par ailleurs justifiées au sens de l’article premier de la Charte.

Comments are closed.