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. Schnarr v. Blue Mountain Resorts Limited, 2018 ONCA 313

[51] As the instant appeals amply demonstrate, the result is a clear conflict. On the one hand, Blue Mountain and Snow Valley have lawful waivers that would exclude their liability for the injuries suffered by Mr. Schnarr and Ms. Woodhouse, respectively, and yet they are told that those waivers are of no effect by virtue of the CPA. It is of no practical comfort to Blue Mountain and Snow Valley to be told that their waivers protect them from the negligence claims but not from the warranty claims. The result for the ski resorts is the same. They will be held liable for something that they thought they had lawfully protected themselves against. In my view, such a result is both a direct contradiction and an absurd result.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. McKinley v. BC Tel, [2001] 2 SCR 161, 2001 SCC 38

1 This appeal arises out of a wrongful dismissal action. It calls upon the Court to elaborate the circumstances in which an employer would be justified in summarily dismissing an employee as a result of the latter’s dishonest conduct. More specifically, the question is whether any dishonesty, in and of itself, suffices to warrant an employee’s termination, or whether the nature and context of such dishonesty must be considered in assessing whether just cause for dismissal exists.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3 Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9

[1] This appeal calls on the Court to consider, once again, the troubling question of the approach to be taken in judicial review of decisions of administrative tribunals. The recent history of judicial review in Canada has been marked by ebbs and flows of deference, confounding tests and new words for old problems, but no solutions that provide real guidance for litigants, counsel, administrative decision makers or judicial review judges. The time has arrived for a reassessment of the question.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Union des consommateurs c. Magasins Best Buy ltée, 2018 QCCA 445

[59] Par ailleurs, l’Union invoque que Best Buy utilise les Plans PSP pour se soustraire à la garantie légale en indiquant qu’elle n’a aucune obligation de garantie pendant la période de garantie du fabricant. En outre, les Plans PSP ne garantiraient que le fonctionnement conformément aux normes du fabricant, alors que la Cour a mentionné, dans l’arrêt Fortin c. Mazda[33], que le respect des normes de l’industrie ne met pas nécessairement le commerçant ou le manufacturier à l’abri d’une conclusion de déficit d’usage. Les attentes légitimes de l’acheteur doivent être considérées. De ce fait, la garantie contenue aux Plans PSP serait inférieure à la garantie légale, contrairement à ce que prévoit l’article 35 L.p.c.

(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.