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. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company v High Park Medical & Rehabilitation Centre Ltd, 2015 ONSC 5169

[9] Finally, I note that in my endorsement, I limited the parties to three pages of submissions on costs. I also required the defendants to deliver a Costs Outline for comparison purposes. I expressly directed that case law was not to be provided but that references to cases would be made by hyperlinks embedded in parties’ pdf submissions. The defendants’ first submissions were 11 ½ pages in length. They provided no Costs Outline despite being directed expressly to do so. They included pdf copies of cases rather than hyperlinks to CanLII. Scanning and emailing pdf copies of case law is one of the biggest wastes of the profession’s collective time. Everyone has free access to CanLII and most in the business have subscription access to at least two other major online reporting services. The time spent to scan cases adds no value. Moreover the proliferation of unindexed pdf copies of the same case is valueless. The use of limited email space by space-hogging pdfs is singularly wasteful. Of more note perhaps is the defendants’ repeated showing that they simply do not care to follow the Rules or the Court’s directions. As the defendants are already paying costs on a substantial indemnity basis, I do not see that any further response is required at this time.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Byrnes v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONSC 2939

[3] Mr. Byrnes was retained on March 6, 2005, in a matrimonial file to act for Mr. Rasheed. Mr. Rasheed is a man of modest means who was earning approximately $42,000 a year at the time and had limited assets. Mr. Byrnes asked Mr. Rasheed to sign an irrevocable direction to hold Mr. Rasheed’s share of the funds from the sale of the matrimonial home in trust for Mr. Byrnes. On August 3, 2005, following the sale of the matrimonial home, Mr. Rasheed received an interim bill of $19,260 inclusive of GST. On August 26, 2005, Mr. Byrnes sent Mr. Rasheed a bill in the amount of $21,654.85 (including GST and disbursements) for services rendered from March 7, 2005 to August 26, 2005, (which included the amount charged for the interim bill). Mr. Rasheed contested the bills, but continued to retain Mr. Byrnes.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Onex Corporation v. American Home Assurance Company, 2015 ONCA 573

[55] American Home submits that the trial judge used direct evidence of the parties’ subjective intentions to overwhelm the language of the policy, and in effect, granted rectification by giving effect to those subjective intentions. The appellant notes that the respondents did not seek rectification in this case and, in any event, submits they could not have possibly satisfied the strict test for rectification.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was L.S. c. Kama Sutra inc., 2014 QCCQ 8713

[1] Le demandeur demande le remboursement du prix payé pour une poupée gonflable achetée de Kama Sutra inc. Il invoque en sa faveur la garantie de durabilité prévue à l’article 38 de la Loi sur la protection du consommateur[1] (« L.P.C. »).

[2] Kama Sutra inc. ( «Kama Sutra ») refuse de rembourser le prix du bien invoquant principalement l’usage abusif et une réparation inadéquate.
(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.