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. Vaillancourt v Carter, 2017 ABCA 282

[26] It is apparent on the evidence before me that Mr. Carter has gone to elaborate lengths to shield his investments and arrange his affairs to appear as though he does not have the financial means to satisfy the judgment against him or to comply with a security for judgment order. A holding company, aptly named Shield Investments Inc., contains millions of dollars worth of Mr. Carter’s personal assets, including his private residence and multiple luxury vehicles. While individuals are free to organize their affairs as they please, those who deliberately make themselves judgment-proof may be required to post security which others would not have to post.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v. Picard, 2017 ONCA 692

[30] The trial judge acknowledged that “[a]t first blush, it would appear that the Crown can easily make the case for complexity”, but concluded that “when looked at more closely, it does not stand up”. She explained that despite the large quantity of disclosure, only a fraction of the text messages, photographs and cellphone records would be introduced into evidence at trial. In her view, this was, in essence, a circumstantial case and the legal issues were not complex or novel. She therefore rejected the Crown’s submission that the complexity of the case justified the delay in excess of the presumptive ceiling, commenting: “In short, to the extent that any murder trial could ever be described as typical, this is it.”

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Waquan v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 ABCA 279

[40] Another significant consideration—if a claim for land in severalty is found to be an individual right and if any such claims are made out (about which we obviously express no opinion)—is whether, and if so how, that might affect the Settlement Agreement and the Consent Order. This is a matter to be resolved solely between the parties to the Settlement Agreement, Canada and the MCFN (as representatives of the collective rights). The possibility that an individual or individuals may be entitled to land in severalty is not, absent the consent of the parties to Settlement Agreement and the Consent Order, a reason to interfere with either. An individual who may have been entitled to land in severalty when the Settlement Agreement was reached may seek a declaration that this right was not compromised by the Settlement Agreement and Consent Order and advance a claim to exercise such a right. However, such an individual has no standing to seek to set aside the Settlement Agreement or the Consent Order. Said another way, Canada and the MCFN may be of the opinion that the grant of land in severalty can co-exist with the extant Settlement Agreement and the Consent Order.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Canadian Royalties inc. c. Mines de nickel Nearctic inc., 2017 QCCA 1287

[17] Le juge ajoute que le cabinet d’avocats de l’arbitre était certainement au courant d’informations confidentielles concernant les affaires de la requérante, notamment son projet de construction de la mine. Il considère en effet que même si le cabinet était techniquement l’avocat des preneurs, il subsistait également une relation avocat-client à l’égard de la requérante en sa qualité d’émettrice. Ce faisant, il était dans l’obligation de mettre en place des mesures afin de s’assurer que l’arbitre soit mis à l’abri de tout risque d’accès à des informations confidentielles. En l’espèce, le juge considère qu’aucune telle mesure n’a été mise en preuve.

(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.