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. Garacci v. Ross 2013 ONSC 5627
   

   [1] The defendant brings this motion for an order that the plaintiff Christina Garacci (“Christina”) produce approximately 1100 photographs located on the private portion of her Facebook account and related profile pages. The defendant argues that the photographs are relevant to matters in issue in this action and ought to be produced. Christina opposes the relief requested by the defendant on the basis that the photographs are simply not relevant, that the defendant’s request amounts to an invasion of her privacy and on the basis that the photographs are being requested solely for the purpose of challenging Christina’s credibility.

2. Payette v. Guay inc. 2013 SCC 45
   

   [4] This appeal provides a clear illustration of how the scope of a restrictive covenant will vary with the nature of the relationship between the parties to the contract and the context in which the covenant was made. It raises important issues relating to the interpretation of covenants limiting employment and competition that are set out in a contract for the sale of assets that leads, on an accessory basis, to the formation of a contract of employment.

3. R. v. Metron Construction Corporation 2013 ONCA 541
   

   [1] On Christmas Eve, 2009, three workers and a site supervisor employed by the respondent, Metron Construction Corporation, plunged to their deaths. Together with two others, they had boarded a swing stage that collapsed as it descended from the exterior of the fourteenth floor of a high-rise construction site. The respondent pleaded guilty to one count of criminal negligence causing death and was sentenced to a fine of $200,000. The Crown seeks leave to appeal this sentence on the grounds that it is manifestly unfit.
   [2] This appeal addresses amendments made to the Criminal Code in 2004 and, in particular, the factors that must be considered when sentencing an organization, which in this case is a corporation.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Payette c. Guay inc. 2013 CSC 45

[4] Le présent pourvoi illustre bien la portée différente que revêt une clause restrictive selon la nature de la relation des cocontractants en cause et le contexte dans lequel cette clause a été établie. Il soulève d’importantes questions relativement à l’interprétation des clauses limitant l’emploi et la concurrence lorsqu’elles figurent dans un contrat de vente d’actifs qui entraîne, à titre accessoire, la formation d’un contrat de travail.