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. Myers v. Peel County Board of Education, [1981] 2 SCR 21, 1981 CanLII 27 (SCC)

MCINTYRE J.—This appeal concerns an accident suffered by a fifteen year old boy in attempting a dismount from the rings in a gymnastic class at his high school. At trial the defendants (the school authorities) were found negligent, as was the plaintiff, the division of liability being eighty per cent to the defendants and twenty per cent to the plaintiff. Damages were awarded and after the allowance for the shared liability the plaintiff, who had attained majority by the time judgment was given, obtained judgment for $64,000 and one-half of his costs. His father, who had been the plaintiffs next friend at the commencement of the action, received judgment for $2,656.30. An appeal was taken to the Ontario Court of Appeal by the defendants. There was no cross-appeal. The Court of Appeal, by a majority, Arnup and Zuber JJ.A., allowed the appeal and dismissed the action. Blair J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal. The appellant appeals to this Court by leave and seeks the restoration of the trial judgment. No issue arises on the question of quantum of damages.

2. Lipson v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell, LLP, 2014 ONSC 6106

[70] It is important to note that there are two discrete aspects to the first issue. The first aspect is whether the communications between Class Members with Thorsteinssons and with Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg are relevant, and the second aspect of the issue is: if the communications are relevant, then are they relevant for the purposes of the common issues trial or are the communications relevant to an issue that will be decided at an individual issues trial if the action proceeds that far.

[71] It is, of course, also possible that an issue might be relevant to both the common issues trial and an individual issues trial, but the immediate problem is whether the communications are relevant and should be disclosed and produced at this juncture of the bifurcated proceeding; i.e. should the documents be disclosed and produced for the common issues trial.

3. R. v. McKay, 2014 ONCJ 540

[90] I have applied the 3 pronged test set out in WD in assessing the reliability and credibility of all the evidence. I accept the position and the submissions of the Crown.

[91] This is a classic case of road rage.

[92] On his evidence, Mr. McKay became angry and frustrated by other drivers on the QEW. I conclude that they were driving properly and safely, and in his distorted sense of entitlement to the road, Mr. McKay personalized their driving as an insult to him and he chose to drive with revenge.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Dunsmuir c. Nouveau-Brunswick, [2008] 1 RCS 190, 2008 CSC 9

1. Une fois de plus, la Cour est appelée à se pencher sur l’épineuse question de la démarche qu’il convient d’adopter pour le contrôle judiciaire des décisions des tribunaux administratifs. Au Canada, l’évolution récente du contrôle judiciaire a été marquée par une déférence variable, l’application de critères déroutants et la qualification nouvelle de vieux problèmes, sans qu’une solution n’offre de véritables repères aux parties, à leurs avocats, aux décideurs administratifs ou aux cours de justice saisies de demandes de contrôle judiciaire. Le temps est venu de réévaluer la question.

* 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.