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 14 – 21:

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. 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 . . .

3. Fernandes v. Penncorp 2013 ONSC 2803
   

   1. This is a ruling on prejudgment interest and costs following a seven day trial in November and December 2012. I released a judgment dated March 22, 2013[1]. I rely on the facts set out in my judgment. I will only repeat the facts that are necessary to support this ruling.

   2. Avelino was a bricklayer. He injured his back on December 11 and 13, 2004 and his left shoulder on November 14, 2005. He was unable to work from the time that he injured his back on December 11, 2004. Fernandes had a disability insurance policy with Penncorp. He was entitled to be paid under the policy at the rate of $3,000 per month, if he was unable to work as a bricklayer for two years from the date of his disability, and thereafter if he was unable to work at any occupation for which he was “reasonably suited by education, training or experience”. Initially Penncorp made monthly payments to him under the policy from the date that he applied for benefits in January 2005 until July 22, 2005. Avelino commenced an action against Penncorp on July 11, 2007. In September 2011, Penncorp made a lump sum payment to him, which resulted in his being paid for two years until January 2007. Penncorp paid nothing for over six years. They paid nothing beyond the two years to which he was entitled to be paid under the policy, as a result of his being unable to perform the occupation of bricklayer.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Mailhot c. R. 2013 QCCA 870

1. Le requérant se pourvoit contre un jugement rendu le 21 mars 2013 par la Cour du Québec, chambre criminelle et pénale du district de Longueuil (l’honorable Claude Provost – le juge), qui lui impose une peine d’emprisonnement ferme de 12 mois au lieu et place d’une peine d’emprisonnement de 12 mois avec sursis selon la suggestion commune des procureurs.

2. L’intimée appuie cette démarche étant d’avis, tout comme le requérant, que la suggestion commune était raisonnable et que le juge ne devait pas l’écarter.