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. Jackson, 2018 ONSC 2527

[6] But, Mr. Jackson, this case is also about how the criminal justice system treats African Canadians. I have been asked to do something about changing the law. So I have had to think about this. I will apologize in advance, because this discussion will take some time. It will involve a lot of legal language. However, I must do this in order to do justice to the issues raised. To do justice for you.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Alberta v ENMAX Energy Corporation, 2018 ABCA 147

[71] At its core, the legislative intention underlying the requirement for municipal entities to make Balancing Pool Payments is clear. The Legislature’s intent is reflected in the text of the Utilities Act and the PILOT Regulation and in the legislative debates. It is to ensure a level playing field between non-tax paying municipalities (and their subsidiaries) and their tax-paying competitors in the private sector. The object in doing so is to promote competition for the benefit and protection of Alberta electricity consumers. Hence the statutory requirement that municipal entities which choose to compete in the electric power industry make Balancing Pool Payments in an amount equal to what they would otherwise be required to pay were they subject to tax. To repeat, these Balancing Pool Payments are not payable to the Crown but to the Balancing Pool for the benefit of Alberta electricity consumers.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v. Irwin, 2018 BCPC 94

[18] If the calculation of the delay falls below the presumptive ceiling, the defence has the burden of demonstrating that it is unreasonable. To do so, the defence must show that it took meaningful steps to demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings, and that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have. In discharging their onus the defence is only required to act reasonably, not perfectly: ibid. at paras. 85 and 99.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Benisty c. Kloda, 2018 QCCA 608

[60] À titre d’exemple, lorsqu’une personne est enregistrée à son insu durant une conversation téléphonique ou un entretien, on considérera qu’il s’agit d’un élément matériel de preuve, alors qu’une personne qui s’enregistre elle-même et dicte un récit tend plutôt à établir un témoignage.

[61] Il ne faut pas perdre de vue qu’en vertu des règles relatives à la présentation d’un élément matériel de preuve, tout comme le témoignage enregistré (article 2874 C.c.Q.), l’enregistrement doit faire l’objet d’une preuve distincte de son authenticité (article 2855 C.c.Q.).

(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.