Today

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. Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6 2014 SCC 21

    1] The Supreme Court Act provides that three of the nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada must be appointed “from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that Province”: R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, s. 6. This reference seeks our opinion on two aspects of the eligibility requirements for appointment to these three Quebec seats.

  2. Edward Tracy v. The Iranian Ministry of Information and Security 2014 ONSC 1696

    [2] In 2003 and 2005 the plaintiffs obtained judgments against the defendants, The Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (“MIS”), the Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”) and The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp. (the “Revolutionary Guards”), in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the “US Judgments”). By order made March 22, 2013, Roberston J. of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court recognized the US Judgments and made them an order of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia pursuant to section 4(5) of the JVTA. On May 22, 2013, Chapnik J. ordered that the Nova Scotia Order be registered as an order of this Court (the “Ontario Recognition Order”) pursuant to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R.5. The plaintiffs moved for certain declarations and orders in respect of the enforcement of the Ontario Recognition Order.

  3. Hillier and Maverick Paintball Inc. v. Hutchens et al 2014 ONSC 1579

    [1] There are three motions before the court. The first is brought against the plaintiffs by the defendants Barry Poulson and Arseneau Poulson (collectively “Poulson”) under rule 21.01(1), for an order striking out the Statement of Claim, and/or an order dismissing the action because it was commenced after the expiration of the applicable limitation period.

    [2] The second is brought by the defendant Alvin Meisels (“Meisels”) and seeks an order pursuant to rule 57.03(2) dismissing the action against him for failure of the plaintiffs to pay costs pursuant to the order of Haines J. dated May 31, 2013.

    [3] The third is brought by the defendants Rabbi Mendel Kaplan and Chabad@Flamingo (collectively “Kaplan”), and seeks an order pursuant to rule 21.01(1)(b) striking out the statement of claim as against them on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action.

    [4] I am advised that these motions represent the seventh, eighth and ninth motions of a similar nature that have been brought in these proceedings, all of which have been successful in whole or in part. Those earlier motions were heard by Haines J., and dealt with many of the same issues that are now again before the court.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Renvoi relatif à la Loi sur la Cour suprême, art. 5 et 6 2014 CSC 21

[1] La Loi sur la Cour suprême prévoit que trois des neuf juges de la Cour suprême du Canada sont choisis « parmi les juges de la Cour d’appel ou de la Cour supérieure de la province de Québec ou parmi les avocats de celle‑ci » : L.R.C. 1985, ch. S‑26, art. 6. Le renvoi porte sur deux aspects des conditions de nomination à ces trois postes de juge réservés pour le Québec.

* 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.

Comments are closed.