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 this last week:

  1. R v Murphy 2013 CanLII 40807 (NL PC)

    1. The accused was charged with the offence of parking in a crosswalk, contrary to section 144(e) of the Highway Traffic Act. As a result of the events which followed the alleged parking in the crosswalk, he was also charged with offences under the Criminal Code of causing a disturbance and resisting arrest. I have come to the conclusion that the accused ought to be acquitted of the three charges, and the within constitute my reasons for having come to that conclusion. I will discuss the evidence first, before putting it in the context of the law, including legislation and jurisprudence.

    2. Since almost all of the interaction between the accused and Constable Janes was video recorded, and most of that was itself also audio recorded, there is little dispute about the facts. . . .

  2. Grant v. The Corporation of the City of Kingston and Queen’s University 2013 ONSC 4689

    [3] The action arises out of an alleged slip and fall accident that took place on Arch Street in the City of Kingston on February 6, 2009. The Plaintiff, Ms. Grant, alleged that she slipped and fell on municipal sidewalk located in an area within the Queen’s University campus.

  3. Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP 2013 SCC 39

    [1] Can a law firm accept a retainer to act against a current client on a matter unrelated to the client’s existing files? More specifically, can a firm bring a lawsuit against a current client on behalf of another client? If not, what remedies are available to the client whose lawyer has brought suit against it? These are the questions raised by this appeal.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Wightman c. Widdrington (Succession de) 2013 QCCA 1187

[5] L’affaire Castor Holdings Ltd. (Castor) est connue. La faillite de cette dernière en 1992 a engendré une série de poursuites judiciaires en responsabilité professionnelle à l’encontre de la firme de comptables agréés Coopers & Lybrand (Coopers) et les associés canadiens de celle-ci.

[6] Près de 100 créanciers réclament à Coopers plus de 1 milliard de dollars. Pour l’essentiel, les créanciers allèguent que Coopers a fait preuve de négligence dans ses travaux comptables. Plus particulièrement à l’occasion de ceux relatifs à la vérification des états financiers de Castor. N’eût été cette négligence, affirment-ils, ils n’auraient pas investi ou prêté les sommes réclamées.

[7] La Cour supérieure a consacré près de 12 années à l’audition de cette affaire. . . .

Comments are closed.