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. Ursa Ventures Ltd v Edmonton (City), 2016 ABCA 135

[32] It is clear that the chambers judge considered this affidavit of records in the context of this lawsuit. He looked at its nature (a sworn affidavit) and the allegations in the pleadings. He was aware of the timing of the affidavit (within weeks of the three-year time limit). He balanced these factors, as he was obliged to do in employing the functional approach. It is not this court’s role to reweigh factors. His decision is entitled to appellate deference and this ground of appeal is dismissed.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Dr. Agostino Pierro v The Hospital for Sick Children, 2016 ONSC 2987

[32] I disagree. There is no doubt that the applicant’s reputation may well be harmed. The cause, however, would not be the fact of suspension, but the accusations of misconduct. If the allegations are found to be groundless, the applicant would be vindicated regardless of any suspension. Contrary to his submissions, I find that if the applicant is correct that the allegations lack any merit, it is in his best interest that the independent investigation be seen as beyond reproach and free from interference.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Heritage Capital Corp. v. Equitable Trust Co., 2016 SCC 19

[1] At the centre of this appeal is the Lougheed Building in downtown Calgary, which was designated a “Municipal Historic Resource” under the Historical Resources Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-9 (“HRA”). The owner at the time of the designation, Lougheed Block Inc. (“LBI”), agreed to rehabilitate the building and adhere to certain restrictions on its use in exchange for 15 yearly payments (“Incentive Payments”) from the City of Calgary (“City”) totalling $3.4 million. The purpose of the Incentive Payments, owed under the “Lougheed Building Rehabilitation Incentive Agreement” (“Incentive Agreement”), was to compensate LBI for the restoration and for any decrease in economic value due to the historic resource designation. That agreement was registered by caveat on title to the land pursuant to the HRA.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Uber Canada inc. c. Agence du revenu du Québec, 2016 QCCS 2158

[206] Les chauffeurs UberX ne peuvent être considérés comme des petits fournisseurs qui n’ont pas l’obligation de s’inscrire pour les fins de la perception et de la remise des taxes en considérant qu’ils n’exploitent pas une entreprise de taxi, car ils contreviennent à la Loi en ne détenant pas de permis de taxi.

(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.