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. Frank v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 ONCA 536

[6] Permitting all non-resident citizens to vote would allow them to participate in making laws that affect Canadian residents on a daily basis, but have little to no practical consequence for their own daily lives. This would erode the social contract and undermine the legitimacy of the laws. The legislation is aimed at strengthening Canada’s system of government and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. While the impugned legislation violates s. 3 of the Charter, it is saved by s. 1. Denying the right to vote to non-resident citizens whose absence exceeds five years is a reasonable limit on the Charter right.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCSC 1216

[37] A key feature of the Director’s conduct in this case is that she and many of her agents approached the case in front of them with a closed mind, having concluded at a very early stage, before the children were interviewed, that there was no merit to the sexual abuse allegations and that J.P. had fabricated them and had coached her children to make their disclosures. The Director’s focus turned away from the best interests of the children and on to J.P. As I previously noted, until the 64th day of the First Trial, the Director’s steadfast position was that the sexual abuse allegations were groundless and that J.P. was unfit to parent because she was suffering from mental illness or instability that posed a risk of emotional harm to the children. J.P.’s persistence in her claim that her children had been sexually abused by their father was held against her by the Director because she thought the manner in which J.P. continued to act on her belief caused and would continue to cause emotional harm to the children. The Director supported B.G.’s claim for custody of the children at an early stage in the case, and then unreasonably and aggressively stuck to that plan until March 29, 2012, to the detriment of the children. In supporting B.G., the Director’s agents also impeded Mr. Colby’s s. 15 investigation in the family law action.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), 2015 SCC 39

[1] Discrimination can take a variety of forms. Although some of them are easy to identify, others are less obvious, such as those that result from unconscious prejudices and stereotypes or from standards that are neutral on their face but have adverse effects on certain persons. The Charter of human rights and freedoms, CQLR, c. C‑12 (“Charter”), prohibits the various forms of discrimination and creates a remedy for victims of discrimination.
[2] The case at bar gives the Court its first opportunity to consider a form of discrimination allegedly arising out of a decision of a foreign authority. In this case, a Canadian company refused to provide pilot training to an individual on the basis of a decision by U.S. authorities. It is argued that the U.S. authorities’ decision was the result of racial profiling and that the company discriminated against the individual in question by relying on that decision.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Autorité des marchés financiers c. X, 2014 QCCA 2368

[11] De l’avis de la Cour, la facture de l’assignation à comparaître ne permet pas de combler le vide factuel sur lequel repose la demande de l’intimée. Tous les échanges entre un avocat et son client ne sont pas nécessairement protégés par le secret professionnel[7]. En l’espèce, aucune question ne lui a encore été posée et toute atteinte par l’enquêteur au droit à la confidentialité auquel pourrait prétendre la société qui l’emploie relève de l’hypothèse ou, dans le scénario le plus favorable à la thèse de l’intimée, de la spéculation. Il n’y a tout simplement pas suffisamment de matière pour évaluer la portée concrète de la présomption simple d’immunité de divulgation dans le cas à l’étude, en tenant pour acquis, sans en décider, qu’elle devrait trouver application.
(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.