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. A.T. v., 2017 FC 114

[70] In my view, the respondent’s claimed purpose “to make law accessible for free on the Internet” on cannot be considered “journalistic”. In this instance, there is no need to republish the decisions to make them accessible as they are already available on Canadian websites for free. The respondent adds no value to the publication by way of commentary, additional information or analysis. He exploits the content by demanding payment for its removal.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD Canada Trust) v Currie, 2017 ABCA 45

[14] Ordinarily a party who has requested and received a payout statement is entitled to take it at face value. Absent evidence of circumstances that would clearly put the recipient on notice of an irregularity, the mortgagee will be bound by the statement. There was nothing on this record that would cause TD Canada Trust to question whether the balance was $75,000 or something else. It could have had no way of knowing what dealings there had been with the mortgage after it was registered, whether principal had been paid down, whether the disposition of the second property had generated net proceeds, etc. The Craigs had never seen the first payout statement prepared by Fuoco, which contemplated personal approval by Currie.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Williams v. Starbucks, 2017 BCPC 27

[3] When the vehicle came to a stop, Ms. Williams testified “the lid popped off” and the tea poured onto her, hitting mainly her left thigh and gluteal area, causing second and third degree burns. Understandably, Ms. Williams was in significant pain. She testified she was in shock when this happened. Ms. Williams was taken to the hospital and treated for her injuries.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (A.A.) c. Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux des Laurentides (Centre de santé et de services sociaux de Thérèse-de-Blainville), 2017 QCTDP 2

[108] Le Tribunal doit ainsi conclure que le Questionnaire médical, pris dans son ensemble, est discriminatoire et que les questions qu’il contient ne sont pas fondées sur les aptitudes ou qualités requises de A.A. pour occuper un poste de psychologue. Il contrevient donc aux articles 4, 5, 10 et 18.1 de la Charte.

(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.