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. Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Google Inc., 2015 BCCA 265

[3] Google contends that the injunction ought not to have been granted because the application did not have a sufficient connection to the Province to give the Supreme Court of British Columbia competence to deal with the matter. It also argues that the injunction represents an inappropriate burden on an innocent non-party to the litigation. Further, it contends that the extraterritorial reach of the injunction is inappropriate and a violation of principles of comity. Finally, Google contends that the injunction should not have been granted because of its effect on freedom of speech.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v Suarez-Noa, 2015 ONSC 3823

[8] In this case, the first four minutes of a 19 minute opening address had nothing to do with providing a general overview of the evidence. That time was entirely devoted to pre-emptive argument. Crown counsel discussed personal personality traits that, while allowing one to appear calm on the outside could disguise “deep uncontrolled rage”. She inserted her personal preference for people who let her know where she stands with them.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. 1007374 Alberta Ltd v Ruggieri, 2015 ABCA 205

[8] The appellants contend that the failure to pay or appeal the first judgment (without more) is not a basis for finding oppression. While we acknowledge that a debt action should not be routinely turned into an oppression action, the conduct of the appellants is considerably more than the mere failure to pay a judgment or appeal that judgment. This record amply supports the trial judge’s finding that the appellants set out on a deliberate course of conduct to strip Ruggieri Engineering of its exigible assets. They encumbered Ruggieri Engineering with the general security notes and promissory notes. They paid off other creditors of Ruggieri Engineering and moved Ruggieri’s Engineering’s business to Alberta Engineering.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Imperial Tobacco Canada ltée c. Létourneau, 2012 QCCA 622

[5] On doit d’abord reconnaître que le litige dans lequel sont engagées les parties est d’une complexité peu commune, notamment sur le plan procédural. Au paragraphe 27 de son jugement, le juge Riordan use du qualificatif « gargantuan », et cela même paraît un euphémisme. Cette complexité signifie nécessairement que les règles ordinaires de la procédure doivent être non pas abandonnées ou sacrifiées, mais modulées et adaptées, de façon créative et souple, à une situation qui, assurément, est exorbitante du commun des affaires judiciaires. C’est le juge Riordan qui, à titre de gestionnaire des instances (i.e. instance principale et instance en garantie) et président du procès, doit voir, d’une part, à ce que l’affaire procède aussi efficacement que possible, tout en assurant, d’autre part, le respect des droits des parties, dont, il va sans dire, le droit à une défense pleine et entière.
(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.