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. Pletsas 2014 ONSC 1568
   

   [1] This appeal raises two issues for consideration. First, did the interventions by the trial judge fatally compromise the appearance of the fairness of the trial? Second, did the trial judge err in the manner in which he assessed the necessary elements of the offence of failing to comply with a demand to provide a suitable sample of breath into an approved road-side screening device?

2. Waldman v. Thomson Reuters Canada Limited 2014 ONSC 1288
   

   [94] Of course, a class action settlement is not approved because it is an excellent result from the perspective of the representative plaintiff, defendant, and class counsel. To be approved, the settlement must be substantively, procedurally, circumstantially, and institutionally fair to class members. In the case at bar, I think that the best that can be said for the proposed Settlement is that it is procedurally fair and that it was arrived at after the hard bargaining of very competent counsel on both sides.

   [95] I, however, do not find that the Settlement Agreement is substantively, circumstantially, or institutionally fair to Class Members. In this regard, I agree with the general sentiment of the objectors to the Settlement that the Settlement Agreement brings the administration of justice and class actions into disrepute because: (a) the Settlement is more beneficial to Class Counsel than it is to the Class Members; and (b) in its practical effect, the Settlement expropriates the Class Members’ property rights in exchange for a charitable donation from Thomson.

3. R. v. Wilhelm 2014 ONSC 1637
   

   [81] At trial, the prosecution advanced the allegation that the ‘obstruct peace officer’ charge was established by the Appellant’s act of closing the door on Const. Boshold’s foot and his attempt to push the officer out of the house. The ‘assault police officer’ charge was said to be proven by essentially these same acts.

   [82] At the outset of trial, the Crown submitted reliance upon exigent circumstances, including s. 529.3 of the Criminal Code, as the authority for Const. Boshold’s warrantless non-consensual entry to the Wilhelm dwelling. By the end of trial, the prosecution disclaimed reliance on such authority to found the lawful execution of police duty, preferring instead to rely upon an asserted common law power of a constable responding to a 9-1-1 call, a distress call for help, “to enter into the residence to determine the well-being of Maryanne”. In this regard, the Crown placed especial reliance upon R. v. Godoy, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 311, and R. v. Nicholls 1999 CanLII 2750 (ON CA), (1999), 139 C.C.C. (3d) 253 (Ont. C.A.).

The most-consulted French-language decision was Berthiaume c. Carignan 2013 QCCS 1357

[1] Expulsée de la SORAD s.e.n.c.r.l. (« la SORAD »), une société regroupant des médecins spécialistes en radiologie diagnostique, Marie-Josée Berthiaume (« Berthiaume ») réclame 250 000 $ de certains de ses anciens associés en réparation pour des atteintes à sa réputation, du harcèlement à son endroit ainsi qu’à l’égard de son conjoint, Gaétan Barrette (« Barrette ») et pour procédure abusive.

[2] Stéphane Carignan (« Carignan »), Nicole Gougeon (« Gougeon »), Jocelyn Blais (« Blais »), Pierre Boulianne (« Boulianne »), Michel Dubé (« Dubé »), Michel-Pierre Dufresne (« Dufresne »), Vagharchag Ehramdjian (« Ehramdjian »), Robert Filion (« Filion »), Marc Girard (« Girard »), Thuy Khanh Nguyen (« Nguyen »), et Patricia Ugolini (« Ugolini »), tous associés dans la SORAD, réclament reconventionnellement chacun 38 102,45 $ représentant leur part d’honoraires et déboursés extrajudiciaires encourus et 5 000 $ à titre de dommages pour la procédure judiciaire de Berthiaume qu’ils qualifient, eux aussi, d’abusive.

* As of January 2014 we measure the total amount of time spent on the pages rather than simply the number of hits; as well, a case once mentioned won’t appear again for three months.