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. Saleh v Nebel, 2015 ONSC 3680

[42] I told Mr. Elkin that the question I had raised concerned compliance or lack of compliance with the order made by Stinson J. I told him that the Supreme Court of Canada has said that the civil justice system in Canada is broken and that more intensive Trial Management is one of the mechanisms being implemented to try to repair the system. This trial did not proceed well and it appeared to me that an order of the court was ignored. As such, I said that I required submissions as set out in my endorsement. I also noted that if Mr. Elkin chose to charge his client fees when the court has found them to be unreasonable, that would be a matter for the Law Society rather than for the court. Mr. Elkin advised that he may have to seek external counsel and asked for time to respond.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Worthey v City of Hamilton, 2015 ONSC 3690

[90] The evidence in this case informs me that this City deemed it appropriate to adopt a policy requiring that the City sidewalks be inspected annually. This sidewalk was not inspected at all in 2012, the year of the fall. In addition, while an after the fact observation, the evidence before me indicates that the City has still not repaired the sidewalk defect in question here, standing pat apparently on its measurements that indicate the height discrepancy here is 1/8” less than what has been judicially recognized as a commonly accepted threshold for action ability.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v. Smith, 2015 SCC 34

[1] Regulations under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 (“CDSA”), permit the use of marihuana for treating medical conditions. However, they confine medical access to “dried marihuana”, so that those who are legally authorized to possess marihuana for medical purposes are still prohibited from possessing cannabis products extracted from the active medicinal compounds in the cannabis plant. The result is that patients who obtain dried marihuana pursuant to that authorization cannot choose to administer it via an oral or topical treatment, but must inhale it, typically by smoking. Inhaling marihuana can present health risks and is less effective for some conditions than administration of cannabis derivatives.

[2] The parties accept the conclusion of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker (2000), 2000 CanLII 5762 (ON CA), 146 C.C.C. (3d) 193, that a blanket prohibition on medical access to marihuana infringes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This appeal requires us to decide whether a medical access regime that only permits access to dried marihuana unjustifiably violates the guarantee of life, liberty and security of the person contrary to s. 7 of the Charter. The British Columbia courts ruled it did, and we agree.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Rothmans, Benson & Hedges inc. c. Létourneau, 2009 QCCA 796

[7] Les requérantes ont ensuite demandé l’autorisation de la Cour supérieure afin de pouvoir interroger au préalable 150 membres des groupes décrits dans le jugement d’autorisation, soit 100 dans le dossier de Mme Létourneau et 50 dans celui impliquant le Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé et M. Blais. Il faut savoir que le premier groupe serait composé de près de deux millions de personnes alors que le second en viserait quelque 50 000. Cette demande a été rejetée par le juge Riordan, décision qui est l’objet de la présente requête.
(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.

Comments are closed.