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. Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., 2016 SCC 29

[1] At common law, a non-unionized employee could be dismissed without reasons if he or she was given reasonable notice or pay in lieu. The issue in this appeal is whether Parliament’s intention behind amendments to the Canada Labour Code[1] in 1978 was to offer an alternative statutory scheme consisting of expansive protections much like those available to employees covered by a collective agreement. In my respectful view, like almost all of the hundreds of adjudicators who have interpreted the scheme, I believe that is exactly what Parliament’s intention was.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v. Williamson, 2016 SCC 28

[1] The respondent, Mr. Williamson, says his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was infringed. The trial judge found no s. 11(b) infringement. The Court of Appeal disagreed and entered a stay of proceedings.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Elan Construction Limited v South Fish Creek Recreational Association, 2016 ABCA 215

[18] As mentioned, it is of crucial importance that the integrity and credibility of the bidding process be scrupulously preserved. A reservation or privilege clause involving an owner’s “sole and unfettered discretion” cannot be interpreted to include the ability to alter the bidding process in a manner which cannot be reasonably anticipated from a reasonable reading of the Instructions to Bidders. The right to evaluate whether a bidder has met a bid requirement in an owner’s “sole and unfettered discretion” does not confer on the owner the right to ignore, alter or delete bid criteria as they please.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Williamson, 2016 CSC 28

[1] L’intimé, M. Williamson, affirme qu’il y a eu atteinte au droit d’être jugé dans un délai raisonnable que lui confère l’al. 11b) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. Le juge du procès a conclu à l’absence de violation de l’al. 11b). La Cour d’appel s’est dite d’avis contraire et a ordonné l’arrêt des procédures.

(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.