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 April 2 – 9:

  1. R. v. Duncan 2013 ONCJ 160

    5. At heart, Mr. Duncan’s case was unremarkable. A minor alleged Highway Traffic Act offence led to a police-citizen interaction in the parking lot of Mr. Duncan’s apartment building in the wee hours of the morning. A request that Mr. Duncan produce his licence led to an alleged refusal, which led to an attempt to arrest him, which led to a struggle, which was captured on a very poor quality video taken on a mobile phone, at the end of which Mr. Duncan found himself being placed under arrest for allegedly assaulting a police officer. . . .

  2. R v McConnell 2012 ABQB 369

    [1] Allyson McConnell was charged with second degree murder in the deaths of her two young sons: Connor, aged two and one-half years; and 10 month old Jayden. I convicted her of manslaughter following her trial on those charges. My reasons for doing so are reported at R v McConnell, 2012 ABQB 263 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 263. Many of the findings I made at trial are relevant to my determination of an appropriate sentence.

    [2] After hearing counsels’ positions on sentence, I imposed a 10‑year weapons prohibition on Ms. McConnell under s 109 of the Criminal Code and ordered her to provide a sample of her DNA in accordance with s 487.051 of the Code. In addition, I dealt with exhibits seized during the investigation and/or entered at trial.

    [3] It remains for me to determine a fit and proper sentence in the circumstances of this case.

  3. Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571

    [1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men . . .

The most-consulted French-language decision was Penner c. Niagara (Commission régionale de services policiers) 2013 CSC 19

[1] Le présent pourvoi porte sur l’application discrétionnaire de la doctrine de la préclusion découlant d’une question déjà tranchée. Plus précisément, il s’agit de savoir si les tribunaux ontariens ont commis une erreur en radiant plusieurs des demandes de l’action civile intentée par l’appelant contre la police au motif que sa plainte pour inconduite policière relativement aux mêmes faits avait été rejetée par un tribunal disciplinaire de la police.

Comments are closed.