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. Fernandes v. Araujo, 2015 ONCA 571

[45] As an intermediate court of appeal, we are ordinarily bound to follow our past decisions, even decisions with which we disagree. It is important that we do so. Our common law legal tradition rests upon the idea that we will adhere to what we decided in the past. As expressed by the Latin phrase stare decisis, we stand by things that have been decided. The rule of precedent provides certainly, consistency, clarity and stability in the law. It fosters the orderly and efficient resolution of disputes and allows parties to obtain reliable legal advice and to plan their affairs accordingly.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Wake v Ruby, 2015 ONSC 4945

[40] Ms. Wake did not bargain for a successful bail outcome for Mr. Edwards. She did not bargain about how Mr. Ruby should perform his services. It might have been a bad bargain for her to pay $10,000 just for Mr. Ruby to show up and listen to the outcome of the bail hearing, but it was her bad bargain to make and, once again, all Mr. Ruby had to do to earn his fee was to show up, which he did not do.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Simaei v Hannaford, 2015 ONSC 5041

[27] I understand that the original proponents of the legislation came from the health care field. Historically health care professionals have avoided apologizing to patients for mistakes out of fear the apology would be considered an admission of guilt in civil proceedings. Over time, thinking has changed. Many doctors, nurses and other health care providers felt that apologizing would initiate the healing process by acknowledging to a patient that harm had been done and by promoting open communication and accountability between patient and health care provider.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Deguise c. Montminy, 2014 QCCS 2672

[1] En janvier 2010, le soussigné fut désigné responsable de la gestion particulière des cas de pyrite et de pyrrhotite dans la région.

[2] Il ne s’agit pas d’un recours collectif.

[3] Tous ces recours (regroupés dans 70 dossiers) sont entrepris soit par des propriétaires de maisons nouvellement construites (ou par les assureurs de maisons neuves agissant en subrogation) ou soit par des propriétaires de commerces qui ont vu les fondations ou les dalles de leurs constructions récentes se dégrader suite au gonflement du béton.

[4] La somme totale des dommages réclamés s’élève à environ 200 000 000 $.
(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.