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 Magoon, 2016 ABCA 412

[51] The trial judge was alive to these concerns and applied the framework described by Moldaver J in Hart. In assessing the probative value of Magoon’s Mr. Big statements, the trial judge considered all the circumstances in which the statements were made. She noted, in particular, the nature and extent of the inducements offered, which were primarily economic in nature. She recognized that the economic inducements were “powerful and motivating” given the appellants’ financial situation. There were no threats of violence, nor was the use of violence promoted within the organization. The trial judge considered that some of the inducements offered, and particularly promises of help in getting the appellants’ children back from social services, did raise concerns about the reliability of the statements obtained. She recognized that there could be a concern about whether the appellants maximized their involvement in order to satisfy Mr. Big’s concerns that the information from the expert reports be explained to his satisfaction.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571

[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels – there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Tran v. University of Western Ontario, 2016 ONCA 978

[17] There are two basic difficulties with these statements. First, I observe that the most successful conspiracy is one in which the target remains completely unaware of it. The crucial element, which the motion judge did not mention or take into account in his assessment of discoverability, is when Dr. Tran became aware of the conspiracy. This was an error. While she knew of certain actions taken by the defendants, her understanding of those actions as indicative of a conspiracy could only be retrospective. This aspect of the cause of action in conspiracy plainly engages the discoverability elements of the Limitations Act, 2002.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Lévesque c. Vidéotron, s.e.n.c., 2016 QCCS 6262

[8] Le demandeur soutient qu’auparavant la location était pour une durée de 24 heures, de sorte qu’il louait ce type de contenu à une heure qui lui permettait de le visionner à nouveau, à l’intérieur de cette période de location de 24 heures, sans frais supplémentaires.

[9] Le demandeur allègue que Vidéotron a réduit sans aucun avertissement la durée de location du contenu sous cette rubrique, alors que ses capsules publicitaires continuaient de laisser croire que la durée de location de 24 heures s’appliquait à tout type de contenu sans distinction.

(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.