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. Adam v. Canada (Environment), 2011 FC 962

[35] Considering all of the foregoing, and keeping in mind that “[i]nterpretations of treaties and statutory provisions which have an impact upon treaty or aboriginal rights must be approached in a manner which maintains the integrity of the Crown” (Badger, above), the Minister clearly erred in reaching his decision by failing to take into account the First Nations Applicants’ Treaty Rights and the honour of the Crown in interpreting his mandate under subsection 80(2). The Decision therefore warrants being set aside on that basis alone (Little Salmon, above). Additional support for this conclusion arguably is provided by the established principles that: (i) “any ambiguities or doubtful expressions in the wording of the treaty or document must be resolved in favour of the Indians”; and (ii) “any limitations which restrict the rights of Indians under treaties must be narrowly construed” (Badger, above).

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Easy Loan Corporation v Wiseman, 2017 ABCA 58

[45] Much has been written (in support and otherwise, academically and by judges in subsequent cases) about all these cases but for present purposes it is only necessary to discuss their legal propositions. By way of preview, the guiding principle is that courts should “apply the method which is the more just, convenient and equitable in the circumstances”: LSUC. And, there appears to be little doubt that LIBR (even if not applied) is the fairest rule but also the most difficult to apply in practice because of the detailed calculations it requires.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Jarbeau v. McLean, 2017 ONCA 115

[52] The trial judge characterized both jury assessments of diminution of value and cost to repair as perverse, and reluctantly gave judgment for the lesser amount. As shown above, there was evidence before the jury justifying both assessments. Absent a reasoned basis for deciding whether to grant judgment for diminution in value or cost to repair, it falls to this court to make that decision.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Choquette c. Air Canada, 2017 QCCS 234

[42] Dans son interrogatoire, le demandeur reconnaît être satisfait du prix payé lorsqu’il achète son billet par le site d’Air Canada. Il admet également avoir pu constater le prix chargé pour le supplément carburant. Enfin, le voyage tel que prévu a eu lieu et le transporteur a donc rempli son obligation d’effectuer le transport. Ce n’est qu’à son retour que Monsieur Choquette s’est interrogé, suite à une discussion avec un ami, sur le coût réel du carburant[15].

(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.