Comments Off on Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII
Posted in:
Today

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

by
More posts by Administrator »

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For the week of January 22 – 29:

  1. Magder v. Ford 2013 ONSC 263

    [1] Robert Ford appeals the decision of Hackland R.S.J. dated November 26, 2012 which held that Mr. Ford contravened s. 5 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50 (“MCIA”) and declared that Mr. Ford’s seat as Mayor of the City of Toronto was vacant. This appeal raises important issues about the application of the City’s Code of Conduct, its interaction with the MCIA, and the application of provisions of the MCIA.

  2. Quebec (Attorney General) v. A 2013 SCC 5

    [1] The issue raised by the parties in these appeals is whether it is valid to exclude de facto spouses from the patrimonial and support rights granted to married and civil union spouses. Does this exclusion violate the right to equality guaranteed by s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”)?

  3. Magder v. Ford 2012 ONSC 6929

    [1] The Appellant moves for a stay of the judgment of Hackland J. dated November 26, 2012, pending the hearing of his appeal from that judgment. The application judge removed the Appellant from his office as mayor of the City of Toronto, finding that he had violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50 by speaking to and voting on a motion requiring him to repay donations made by others to a charitable foundation. The application judge concluded that the Appellant had a pecuniary interest at stake, and that his actions in speaking to and voting on the matter did not result from inadvertence or an error in judgment.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Québec (Procureur général) c. A 2013 CSC 5

[1] Dans les présents pourvois, les parties soulèvent le problème de la validité de l’exclusion des conjoints de fait, des droits alimentaires et patrimoniaux accordés aux conjoints mariés ou en union civile. Cette exclusion viole-t-elle la garantie d’égalité établie par l’art. 15 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés (« Charte »).

And a note of congratulations to Lexum for the record announced in this Tweet:

Comments are closed.