Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

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 March 12 to 19:

  1. R. v. Pham 2013 SCC 15

    [1] The central issue in this appeal is whether a sentence otherwise falling within the range of fit sentences can be varied by an appellate court on the basis that the offender would face collateral consequences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (“IRPA”), s. 64, that were not taken into account by the sentencing judge.

  2. Sangha v. Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board 2007 FC 856

    [1] This is an application for judicial review pursuant to section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 in respect of discriminatory practices in employment on the prohibited ground of national or ethnic origin contrary to section 7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 (the Act). The narrow issue on this judicial review is whether the correct remedy was imposed by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (the Tribunal), and more particularly, whether the remedy should include compensation for loss of an opportunity for employment and, if so, how it should be calculated

  3. Goulet v Buena Vista (Village) 2012 SKQB 503

    [1] The applicant, Roni Goulet, was the mayor of the respondent Village of Buena Vista (the “Village”) at the date of this application. She and other members of the Village council (“Council”) have been in conflict since at least May 13, 2010. That conflict is evident from, among other things, a resolution of non-confidence in the applicant by Council, allegations by the mayor of harassment of Village staff and by the mayor of harassment by the Council, and allegations by the applicant that the Village has interfered with her ability to carry out her duties as mayor.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Robitaille c. Atelier Granite nature inc. 2012 QCCQ 14195

[1] Madame Paré et monsieur Robitaille réclament 7 000 $ à Atelier Granite nature inc. («Granite»). Leur réclamation se compose notamment du remboursement intégral du prix payé pour l’achat et l’installation d’un comptoir de cuisine en granite, en plus de 1 500 $ en dommages et intérêts suite aux préjudices et inconvénients subis pour son remplacement.

This last case made the news because, as this National Post headline has it, “Quebec judge scolded after small-claims court case reveals she had renovations done under the table.

Comments are closed.