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. Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571

[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels – there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2015 ABCA 225

[68] On this point of disability having nothing to do with the adverse impact, the Policy is broader than disability cases. Obviously Elk Valley or any employer would not want a person whose job is to operate loaders or 170 ton vehicles to be under the influence of alcohol at work, even if they have no problem with alcohol or drugs whatsoever. To the extent the Policy singles out the subset of employees who have or believe they may have alcohol or drug addiction or dependency, of whom perhaps a smaller subset are people who have such a disability, the Policy provides for a protected route to assistance, and not for “rigid and inflexible discipline”.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Edwards v Resort Villa Management Ltd, 2015 ABQB 424

[99] I reject the Defendants’ argument that by abandoning their defence to the Counterclaim, the Edwards Plaintiffs are thereby disentitled to argue against the Defendants’ claim for indemnification for costs based on the terms of the VIA. New counsel for the Plaintiff reserved his ability to fully argue the issue of costs when he advised the Court of the abandonment by the Plaintiffs of their claims and their defence to the Counterclaim. Having regard to the reservation of that right, the Plaintiffs cannot now be said to have accepted the indemnification provision or the Defendants’ right to rely on it.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Société TVA inc. c. Marcotte, 2015 QCCA 1118

[27] Dans un premier temps, le juge aborde la question des vices cachés visés par la demande reconventionnelle de Nicole. Il conclut que : 1) Nicole n’avait pas l’obligation de faire examiner le cheval par un vétérinaire avant l’achat; 2) la vente du cheval a eu lieu le 28 février 2004, même si le solde du prix de vente a été payé le 1er mai 2004, jour de la prise de possession du cheval et de la fin de la garantie conventionnelle; 3) dès cette date, Nicole est devenu entièrement responsable du cheval; 4) Nicole a découvert un vice caché en juin 2004, après l’examen du cheval par un vétérinaire; 5) la présomption de connaissance de l’existence du vice caché au moment de la vente s’applique en vertu de 1729 C.c.Q. parce que Marcotte et Delorme sont des vendeurs professionnels; 6) Nicole aurait eu droit au remboursement du prix payé, si son action n’avait pas été prescrite.
(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.