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 Korzh, 2016 ONSC 4745

[29] I am mindful of the Supreme Court’s admonition “to apply the framework contextually and flexibly for cases currently in the system,” but nonetheless find that the case is clearly over the presumptive threshold for cases in the Provincial Court and the Crown has not met its burden to establish the presence of exceptional circumstances such that the charges should not be stayed.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Quenneville v.Volkswagen, 2016 ONSC 4607

[11] The core complaint against each of the defendants is that contrary to the December 4 Carriage Order (as clarified by the February 12 Endorsement) they tried to scoop Ontario residents for an MLG class action. The plaintiffs point primarily to the fact that the agreement attached to the impugned emails retained MLG “to represent [the Ontario resident] in individual proceedings by joinder or in class proceedings …” As I indicated to counsel, trying to scoop even Ontario residents for a joinder action was not in breach of any clear and unequivocal order of this court. The breach was in trying to scoop Ontario residents for an MLG class action.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Riad v 1865789 Ontario Inc., 2016 ONSC 4770

[26] It appears that plaintiffs’ counsel did not appreciate that the defendant may not file a defence unless the noting in default is set aside. In addition, the defendants had served a demand for particulars on March 1, 2016, which had been ignored, and a streamlined demand on June 7, 2016, which was answered by making references to the Statement of Claim. Without particulars, the defendants were unable to provide the Statement of Defence.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Air Algérie c. Groupe SM inc., 2016 QCCS 3427

[144] Le Tribunal croit les explications fournies par Laganière pour justifier sa décision d’aller de l’avant avec la fusion de SM et de SMi pour des fins strictement fiscales sans aucune pensée sur les conséquences de la fusion sur le processus d’Arbitrage. Le Tribunal croit aussi que le témoin, à tort ou à raison, était convaincu qu’une entente interviendrait avec Air Algérie lorsqu’il a été convoqué à Paris pour une séance inattendue de médiation avec Air Algérie après la fin des audiences devant le Tribunal arbitral, mais avant le dépôt des mémoires après enquête demandée par les membres de ce Tribunal arbitral.

(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.