What’s Hot on CanLII This Week

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of November 20 – 27.

♨ 1. R. v. Tremblay 2012 BCPC 410

[1] Mr. Tremblay has entered guilty pleas to two charges: (i) wounding an animal, contrary to section 445(1)(a) of the Criminal Code; (ii) mischief in relation to property, the value of which did not exceed $5000, contrary to section 430(4) of the Criminal Code. It is my duty to impose a fit sentence for each offence.

♨ 2. Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays 2008 SCC 39

[1] On March 29, 2000, after 14 years of employment, the respondent, Kevin Keays, was terminated from his employment at Honda Canada Inc. (“Honda”). Keays sued for wrongful dismissal. The trial judge found that Keays was entitled to a notice period of 15 months. He then considered additional damages dependent on the manner of dismissal (the so‑called “Wallace damages”) and increased the notice period to 24 months. In addition, the trial judge awarded punitive damages against Honda in the amount of $500,000, plus costs on a substantial indemnity scale with a 25 percent premium. The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the finding of wrongful termination as well as the regular damages and the damages for manner of dismissal (Wallace damages). It also ordered that the costs premium be reduced. A majority (Goudge J.A. dissenting) ordered that the quantum of punitive damages be reduced from $500,000 to $100,000.

♨ 3. R. v. Tran 2012 BCPC 401

[4] The accused submitted that the two warrantless entries into the apartment were in violation of his s. 8 Charter right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. The court determined, with the agreement of counsel, that this was a threshold issue, and therefore s. 24(2) of the Charter was not addressed by counsel.

The most-consulted French-language decision was El-Hachem c. Décary 2012 QCCA 2071

[1] Les appelants ont obtenu la permission de se pourvoir contre un jugement de la Cour supérieure[1], district de Laval (l’honorable Danièle Mayrand), qui le 30 janvier 2012 a accueilli la Requête des défendeurs reconventionnels en déclaration d’abus de la Demande reconventionnelle ré-amendée, rejeté leur demande reconventionnelle ré-amendée et ordonné le renvoi du dossier devant la Cour du Québec.