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. Couture v TSCC No. 2187, 2015 ONSC 7596

[1] In condominium living, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. However, the power of the collective is not absolute. Power must be exercised within the bounds of the condominium’s established jurisdiction and with due respect to the legal rights and reasonable expectations of the few or the one.

[2] As with most efforts to balance competing rights, the fact that people are involved complicates matters. It is well understood that in complicated moments people sometimes see exactly what they wish to see. Moreover, some find other’s illogic and foolish emotions an irritant.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green, 2015 SCC 60

[1] These appeals are the result of competing interpretations of the interaction between two pieces of Ontario legislation: Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5 (“OSA”), and s. 28 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 (“CPA”).

[2] Part XXIII.1 OSA provides, at s. 138.3, for a claim for secondary market misrepresentation. An action with respect to this statutory claim may be commenced only with leave of the court as prescribed by s. 138.8 and within the limitation period specified in s. 138.14, that is, three years after the date of the alleged misrepresentations in the instant cases.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Green v. Law Society of Manitoba, 2015 MBCA 67

[2] The applicant, a lawyer of over 60 years at the Bar of Manitoba, appeals from a dismissal of his application from a declaration that certain rules of The Law Society of Manitoba (the Law Society), more particularly those requiring him to attend continuing professional development programs and exposing him to suspension if he does not do so, are illegal and invalid.

[3] The grounds for his application are, firstly, that there is no statutory authority under the Law Society’s constituent statute, The Legal Profession Act, C.C.S.M., c. L107 (the Act), allowing it to do so, and secondly, in the alternative, that a suspension of his right to practice without a hearing or a right of appeal is contrary to the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was D’Amico c. Québec (Procureure générale), 2015 QCCS 5556

[1] Le législateur québécois a prévu que la Loi concernant les soins de fin de vie[1] (la « Loi »), sanctionnée le 10 juin 2014, entre en vigueur le 10 décembre 2015[2].

[2] Malgré le consensus manifesté par les membres de l’Assemblée nationale lors de l’adoption de la Loi, le 5 juin 2015, la notion de l’euthanasie d’un être humain, maintenant plus connue au Québec sous l’euphémisme d’Aide médicale à mourir, a suscité un important débat de société avant son adoption et force est de constater qu’elle suscite toujours un certain débat à l’approche de l’entrée en vigueur de la Loi.

(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.