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. Olson, 2016 BCPC 150

[63] Mr. Olson’s entire relationship with the complainant, outside of the sexual one, was steeped in his role at the school: as a teacher, a house leader and as one of the group of teachers and house parents who stood in a parental role for all of the students. There was an inherent power imbalance in their relationship. The age difference between them, the evolution of their relationship, Mr. Olson’s status in relation to the complainant, and the expectations of, in particular, parents of students who attend boarding schools such as the one that this complainant attended, as well as the expectations of the accused, who believed that his conduct would attract criminal culpability if discovered, all lead inevitably to the conclusion that he was in a position of trust. I conclude that the evidence proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Olson was in a position of trust with respect to the complainant.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v. D.L.W., 2016 SCC 22

[1] Sixty years ago, Parliament added an offence called bestiality to the English version of the Criminal Code, S.C. 1953-54, c. 51, s. 147 (“1955 revisions”) but did not define its elements. Through successive ― and substantial ― amendments to the sexual offence provisions of the Code, Parliament has retained the offence of bestiality to the present day, but has never defined it. The crime is in fact a very old one which, at various times in its history, has also been referred to as a type of sodomy or buggery. But by whatever name it has been known in its long history, sexual penetration has always been one of its essential elements. Whether that is still the case under our present Code is the question that divided the British Columbia courts and now comes to us on appeal.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. York University v Markicevic and Brown, 2016 ONSC 3718

[154] Over the period from 2007 to 2010, Mr. Markicevic held a senior and trusted position at York. He abused that trust for his own personal gain. He masterminded two fraudulent schemes, which he implemented through his subordinates. He used York employees to improve his personal residences, at York’s expense. He transferred those residences to Mima and Ms. Fleming to put those assets beyond York’s reach. He then accepted a severance payment of three years’ salary without disclosing any of his fraudulent activities.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Canada (Procureur général) c. Chambre des notaires du Québec, 2016 CSC 20

[1] Dans le présent pourvoi, le procureur général du Canada (« PGC ») et l’Agence du revenu du Canada (« ARC »), d’une part, et la Chambre des notaires du Québec (« Chambre ») et le Barreau du Québec (« Barreau »), d’autre part, s’affrontent au sujet de la procédure de demandes péremptoires prévue dans la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu, L.R.C. 1985, c. 1 (5e suppl.) (« LIR »). Ces demandes péremptoires permettent aux autorités fiscales de requérir de toute personne des renseignements ou documents dans le cadre de l’application de la LIR.

(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.