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 November 28 to December 4th:

1. Hartley v. Cunningham et al 2013 ONSC 4191
   

   [1] At issue now is the matter of costs awarded to the respondents. In May of this year, I released an endorsement dismissing the application and awarding costs to the respondents in amounts to be agreed upon or fixed by me. The parties did not resolve costs and, therefore, through submissions in writing following the exchange of costs demands as directed, they seek my determination of the appropriate scale of costs to apply and the quantum of costs to be fixed.

2. R. v. Baldree 2013 SCC 35
   

   [1] An out-of-court statement by a person not called as a witness in the proceedings is properly characterized as hearsay where it is tendered in evidence to make proof of the truth of its contents.

   [2] It is undisputed on this appeal that hearsay evidence is presumptively inadmissible as a matter of law.

   [3] The sole issue is whether this exclusionary rule applies to “express hearsay” only, or to “implied hearsay” as well. As a matter of logic and of principle, I am satisfied that it does.

3. Blackshear v. Canada 2013 FC 590
   

   [1] Her Majesty the Queen in right of Alberta, the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Alberta and the Deputy Minister of Justice of Alberta (hereinafter referred to as the Alberta Crown) seek an order to strike the Second Amended Statement of Claim under Rule 221(1) of the Federal Courts Rules (FCR), on the grounds that the pleading does not disclose a reasonable cause of action (Rule 221(1)(a)), and is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious (Rule 221(1)(c)).

The most-consulted French-language decision was Cirvek Fund I., l.p. c. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada 2013 QCCS 2620

[1] Les demanderesses réclament de leur assureur ce qu’il leur en a coûté en honoraires d’avocats et en honoraires d’experts afin de contrer une poursuite intentée contre eux par leurs voisins torontois en 2009.