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. Bank of Nova Scotia v. Diemer, 2014 ONCA 851

[1] The public nature of an insolvency which juxtaposes a debtor’s financial hardship with a claim for significant legal compensation focuses attention on the cost of legal services.

[2] This appeal involves a motion judge’s refusal to approve legal fees of $255,955 that were requested by a court appointed receiver on behalf of its counsel in a cattle farm receivership that spanned approximately two months.

2. Steele v. Intact Insurance Company, 2014 ONSC 6999

[7] It did not hear from the plaintiff again until October 19, 2011 when her lawyer wrote to them to claim that it should have advised her to consider electing non-earner benefits, since the income replacement benefit was of no use to her. Mediation and litigation proceeded thereafter. The statement of claim was filed on January 29, 2013. The plaintiff has never filed a disability certificate that indicated that she was suffering a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

[8] The limitation period in s.281.1 of the Insurance Act runs from the date of the refusal. A clear an unequivocal refusal was made on April 3, 2007. No mediation or neutral evaluation took place to extend the limitation period. The period therefore expired on April 3, 2009. Any error in the reasons for refusal does not invalidate the refusal for our purposes: Sietzema, supra. The defendant is entitled to summary judgment for this reason alone.

3. Sargant v. Lobsinger v. Molson Coors Canada Inc., 2014 ONSC 6936

[96] In a laser question at the conclusion of Mr. Treslan’s able cross-examination of Sargant, the Plaintiff answered “I wouldn’t know” as to whether he lost a cent as a result of what Lobsinger said at the AGM.

[97] Consequently, no pecuniary or special damages can be awarded. There was no economic loss suffered by Sargant.

[98] But some award of general damages is required in these circumstances.

[99] It must not be a king’s ransom, however.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Multani c. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, [2006] 1 RCS 256, 2006 CSC 6

1 Il s’agit, dans le présent pourvoi, de déterminer si la décision d’un conseil des commissaires interdisant à un des élèves relevant de ce conseil de porter un kirpan à l’école, tel que le requiert sa religion, porte atteinte à la liberté de religion de cet élève. Dans l’affirmative, il faut se demander si cette atteinte constitue une limite raisonnable pouvant être justifiée par le besoin de maintenir un environnement sécuritaire à cette école.

2 Comme je l’expliquerai plus loin, je suis d’avis que la prohibition absolue de porter le kirpan porte atteinte à la liberté de religion garantie à l’élève concerné par l’al. 2a) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés (« Charte canadienne »). Cette atteinte ne peut être justifiée en vertu de l’article premier de la Charte canadienne, car il n’a pas été démontré qu’une telle prohibition constitue une atteinte minimale aux droits de cet élève. La décision du conseil des commissaires doit donc être déclarée nulle.

* 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.