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. R v M.J.B., 2015 ABCA 146

[31] The appellant says that another unbalanced treatment lies in the trial judge’s comments about the complainant being mortified and ashamed whereas the trial judge did not attach supportive significance to the appellant also being horrified and deeply shocked. She did comment on the appellant’s demeanour and the substance of his evidence. The fact that he was immediately concerned on leaving the residence as to what might happen to him did not escape her notice but it did not point inevitably to an exculpatory conclusion. She mentioned this evidence but did not use it against the appellant.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. 1395804 Ontario Limited (Blacklock’s Reporter) v Canadian Vintners Association, 2015 CanLII 65885 (ON SCSM)

44. What is evidentially clear is that access to the full article was obtained without colour of right and without permission from the author or publisher. It must be kept in mind that the Defendants embarked upon a course of conduct explicitly designed and coupled with the intent of obtaining an article which was not available openly, transparently and without taking steps otherwise open only to subscribers. Accepting for the moment that the intention of obtaining the article was for the sole purpose of determining whether statements made therein were truthful and accurate, and if necessary, taking steps to challenge, debate and correct, or alternatively for educational purposes, such steps were not taken. Instead, the Defendants took steps which they knew or ought to have known were contrary to the process required by the paywall and to the terms and conditions which were extant and applicable.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. A.R. and B.R. v. M.W. and L.R., 2015 BCPC 285

[3] Difficulties have arisen about the applicants’ contact with A.W. because of differences between the parties over what exposure, if any, A.W. should have to the applicants’ religion. The applicants are devout Jehovah’s Witnesses and they want A.W. to experience that religion. The applicants say that A.W. can decide when she is older whether or not she wishes to be baptized as a Jehovah’s Witness. M.W. does not want A.R. involved in any religion at this time. M.W. says that A.W. can decide when she is older whether or not to participate in any religious practices.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Nadeau-Dubois c. Morasse, 2015 QCCA 78

[24] D’emblée, le juge constate que l’appelant n’est pas nommément visé par l’ordonnance d’injonction du 2 mai et conclut en conséquence que l’article 761 C.p.c. ne trouve pas application en l’espèce. Il considère néanmoins que le reproche adressé à l’appelant, soit d’avoir incité à contrevenir à cette ordonnance, est assujetti à l’article 50 C.p.c., dont il est fait mention expressément dans la citation à comparaître. Il y donc lieu, à son avis, « […] de déterminer si l’appelant a agi de manière à porter atteinte à l’autorité ou à la dignité du tribunal ».
(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.