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 May 7 – 14:

  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. Nothing unusual in all that. The bread and butter of provincial court.

  2. Heasley v. Labelle 2013 ONSC 2601

    1. The plaintiffs consist of an elderly grandmother, who is 89 years of age named Olive Heasley, and her daughter and granddaughter who have advanced claims under the Family Law Act. Ms. Heasley was struck by a school bus during her morning walk and lost a leg as a result of the accident. All three plaintiffs wish to be present during their discovery to give each other emotional support. The school bus was driven by D. Robert Labelle and owned by 417 Bus Line Limited.

  3. York Condominium Corporation v. Superior Energy Management 2013 ONSC 2615

    1. The Applicant is a condominium corporation. The Applicant has a property manager that carries out the day to day operations and maintenance of the condominium. The Respondent is a natural gas supplier. In May 2008 a representative of the property manager entered into a fixed-price contract with the Respondent for the supply of natural gas. Unlike regular corporations, where an employee or agent can contract on behalf of the corporation, condominium corporations cannot contract unless there is a resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing (or ratifying) the contract. In this case, the Applicant’s property manager had no authorization and the Board never ratified the fixed-price contract. This application seeks a declaration that the fixed-price contract was void. The Applicant also seeks consequential relief, including damages representing the difference between the price it paid under the fixed-price contract and the price it would have paid if it had entered into a contract with a different supplier.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs de ADF – CSN c. Syndicat des employés de Au Dragon forgé inc. 2013 QCCA 793

 [6]La justice naturelle oblige-t-elle la Commission des relations de travail, agissant dans le cadre d’une enquête régie par l’article 32 du Code du travailC.t. »)[1], à dévoiler à chacune des associations de salariés en cause l’identité des membres de l’autre, information qui est ordinairement considérée comme confidentielle en raison de l’article 36 C.t.? C’est la question principale que soulève le pourvoi. Dans un autre ordre d’idées, ce pourvoi s’intéresse également à la révision d’une décision de la Commission portant sur la conformité d’une adhésion syndicale aux dispositions qui, dans le Code civil du Québec, régissent la validité des consentements.

Comments are closed.