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. Keenan v. Canac Kitchens Ltd., 2016 ONCA 79

[24] The trial judge observed that, in the jurisprudence leading to a recognition of the intermediate category of dependent contractors, a finding that the worker was economically dependent on the company due to complete exclusivity or a high level of exclusivity weighed heavily in favour of the conclusion that the worker was a dependent contractor.

[25] In my view, this observation is not only correct, it is vital to understanding how the question of exclusivity is to be approached. Exclusivity cannot be determined on a “snapshot” approach because it is integrally tied to the question of economic dependency. Therefore, a determination of exclusivity must involve, as was done in the present case, a consideration of the full history of the relationship. It is for the trial judge to determine whether, after examining that history, the worker was economically dependent on the company, due to exclusivity or a high level of exclusivity.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Royal Trust Corporation of Canada v The University of Western Ontario et al., 2016 ONSC 1143

[14] I have no hesitation in declaring the qualifications relating to race, marital status, and sexual orientation and, in the case of female candidates[6], philosophical ideology, in paragraph 3(d)(ii)(E) of the Will void as being contrary to public policy. Although it is not expressly stated by Dr. Priebe that he subscribed to white supremacist, homophobic and misogynistic views as was the case in the indenture under consideration in Canada Trust Co., the stated qualifications in paragraph 3(d)(ii)(E) leave no doubt as to Dr. Priebe’s views and his intention to discriminate on these grounds.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Merritt v Tigercat Industries, 2016 ONSC 1214

[52] On this evidentiary record, it is clear Tigercat terminated Mr. Merritt due to the criminal charges even though no information was known regarding the allegations. Other matters raised are simply at attempt to justify their decision. Tigercat has failed to demonstrate just cause. At best, it hopes to have evidence at trial. But, they have had a year since termination to gather that evidence. As Henry J. said in Pizza Pizza “the time is now” to present their case.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Gagnon c. R., 2015 QCCA 1138

[7] Il s’écoule au plus dix secondes entre l’instant où les policiers font demi-tour et le moment de l’interpellation, alors que débute la détention arbitraire. Celle-ci se produit pratiquement en même temps que les policiers sortent de leur véhicule et demandent à l’appelant s’il habite à cet endroit. Ce dernier répond immédiatement qu’il n’y demeure pas, pas plus que son ami, ce qui amène le policier à lui demander « ce qu’ils font ici ». Devant l’absence d’explication, le policier lui demande son permis de conduire. L’appelant indique qu’il n’en possède pas, ce qui entraînera son arrestation.

(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.