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. Berg v. Loblaw Properties Limited 2013 ONSC 4803

    [1] The defendant seeks its costs following its successful defence of the plaintiffs’ personal injury action. The matter proceeded over the course of four weeks in Woodstock. The jury found the defendants not liable for the plaintiff, Wendy Berg’s orthopaedic injuries arising from a misstep and fall at the Zehrs store in Woodstock. They assessed damages, provisionally at $158,956.00 exclusive of interest.

  2. O’Neill v. General Motors of Canada 2013 ONSC 4654

    [1] Retirement benefits, such as extended health care and life insurance, are obviously important to retired employees and their families. No one disagrees with this. Nor is there any disagreement about the fact that retirement benefits can be changed even after the employee has retired, provided the contractual language allowing the employer to do so is clear and unambiguous.

    [2] In this case, General Motors of Canada substantially reduced the health care and life insurance benefits of former salaried and executive employees after they retired.

    [3] The question on these motions for partial summary judgment is whether the applicable contractual language allowing GMCL to do so was sufficiently clear and unambiguous. In my view, it was not—at least not for the salaried employees.

  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 Laoun c. Malo 2003 CanLII 24556 (QC CA)

[5] L’appelant se pourvoit contre un jugement de la Cour supérieure, district de Montréal, rendu le 12 janvier 2000 par l’honorable Suzanne Courteau, le condamnant à payer 30 000 $ à l’intimée avec les intérêts, l’indemnité additionnelle et les dépens.

[6] L’appelant est opticien depuis vingt ans et s’est spécialisé dans la distribution de montures de luxe et d’exclusivités européennes. Il s’occupe personnellement de la publicité de son commerce et y consacre entre 100 000 $ et 300 000 $ par année.

Comments are closed.