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 de Grood, 2016 ABQB 294

[129] Each of the three experts concludes that Mr. de Grood did appreciate the nature and quality of his acts in stabbing his victims but did not know, or appreciate, that his behaviour was morally wrong as he was acting under a delusion that he was being threatened at the time. Having reviewed all of the evidence, I again accept the opinions of the experts and I find on a balance of probabilities that at the time of these acts by Mr. de Grood, he did not know or appreciate that his actions were morally wrong.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Alberta v Greter, 2016 ABQB 293

[30] Ms. Greter’s Three/Five Letters debt elimination scheme cannot impose an obligation on Alberta to fulfill Ms. Greter’s demands on how it proves her debt. Further, the information she sought by those means is unnecessary, irrelevant, or imaginary. I therefore conclude that Ms. Greter has no viable defence to Alberta’s action to enforce her outstanding student debts. She has simply attempted to deny and evade her obligations to repay the government loans that financed her education and present career. Her Statement of Defence is struck out and I award summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiff.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v Peers, 2015 ABCA 407

[12] The prospect of jail time for nonpayment of a fine does not change the analysis. Jail time for nonpayment of a fine is not a punishment for the original offence, but rather a method of compelling or motivating payment of the fine. Further, imprisonment for failure to pay a fine is moderated by the limits on the quantum of fines properly imposed, and by the various provisions of the Criminal Code respecting fine programs and the inability to pay.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Groupe CRH Canada inc. (Demix Construction) c. Montréal (Ville de), 2016 QCCS 2332

[125] Dans notre affaire, la Ville n’est pas justifiée de prétendre que la clause litigieuse constitue un carcan qui l’empêche d’exercer sa discrétion en toute équité. En fait, l’expérience démontre qu’elle a déjà fait preuve de plus de souplesse en l’interprétant bien différemment.

(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.