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. Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71

[1] The key issues on this appeal come down to two, straightforward questions: Does Canadian common law impose a duty on parties to perform their contractual obligations honestly? And, if so, did either of the respondents breach that duty? I would answer both questions in the affirmative. Finding that there is a duty to perform contracts honestly will make the law more certain, more just and more in tune with reasonable commercial expectations. It will also bring a measure of justice to the appellant, Mr. Bhasin, who was misled and lost the value of his business as a result.

2. R. v. Dunn, 2013 ONCA 539

[14] As mentioned, this appeal turns on the proper interpretation of the terms “firearm” and “weapon” in the Criminal Code. There is only one issue in this appeal: must an object (to use a neutral word) that falls within the definition of “firearm” in s. 2 also meet the definition for “weapon” in the same section. The interpretation issue arises from the fact that each definition refers to the other.

3. Hazelton Lanes Inc. v. 1707590 Ontario Limited, 2014 ONCA 793

[2] Even though the trial had consumed so much court time, the trial judge did not decide the case on the merits.

[3] Instead, on what was to have been day 36 of the trial, he permitted the respondents to add several defendants and new causes of action, including fraud and conspiracy. In addition, he granted to the respondents an ex parte Mareva injunction against the appellants and the added parties based on findings that all had engaged in a “fraudulent scheme” to hide assets.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Payette c. Guay inc., [2013] 3 RCS 95, 2013 CSC 45

[1] Les clauses restrictives en matière d’emploi et de concurrence font partie intégrante du droit civil depuis de nombreuses années. Elles prennent généralement la forme de clauses de non-concurrence et de non-sollicitation, et tant le droit prétorien que le législateur du Québec en ont cerné les limites après en avoir reconnu les fondements.

[2] Selon que ces clauses se trouvent dans une entente commerciale ou dans un contrat de travail, leur interprétation commande l’application de règles distinctes. Ces règles seront plus généreuses en matière commerciale, mais par contre beaucoup plus strictes en matière d’emploi ou de louage de services.

* 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.