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. White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23

[1] Expert opinion evidence can be a key element in the search for truth, but it may also pose special dangers. To guard against them, the Court over the last 20 years or so has progressively tightened the rules of admissibility and enhanced the trial judge’s gatekeeping role. These developments seek to ensure that expert opinion evidence meets certain basic standards before it is admitted. The question on this appeal is whether one of these basic standards for admissibility should relate to the proposed expert’s independence and impartiality. In my view, it should.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Ogden v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2015 BCCA 175

[20] The judgment consists of 497 paragraphs. The table of contents and paragraphs 6 through 494 are copied word for word, but for a few minor changes, from Ms. Ogden’s counsel’s written submissions. Paragraphs 1 to 5, written in the judge’s own words, read as follows:
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. 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.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Renvoi sur l’article 98 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 (Dans l’affaire du), 2014 QCCA 2365

[1] Conformément à la Loi sur les renvois à la Cour d’appel[1], le gouvernement du Québec sollicite l’avis de la Cour d’appel sur deux questions constitutionnelles relatives à l’interprétation de l’article 98 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867.

[2] Le contexte dans lequel ces questions se posent est le suivant. Le 13 juin 2014, le gouverneur général du Canada nommait l’honorable Robert Mainville à la Cour d’appel du Québec. Au moment de cette nomination, le juge Mainville siégeait à la Cour d’appel fédérale depuis le 18 juin 2010. Antérieurement à cette dernière nomination, il avait appartenu au Barreau du Québec à compter du 31 mars 1977, puis avait accédé à la magistrature comme juge de la Cour fédérale le 19 juin 2009.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

* 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.