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. Patterson v. Peladeau, 2018 ONSC 2625

[2] On the weekend just after the jury began to deliberate, juror #1, while at his home engaged in some internet legal research. He found a regulation under the Insurance Act, known as the Fault Determination Rules. On Monday morning he discussed this regulation with the other jurors, which resulted in a jury question conveyed in a note to the court that sought direction about the use to be made of the regulation. Juror #1 was questioned about the circumstances leading to his obtaining and sharing this information with other jurors. A corrective charge and admonition was delivered by me the following day, directing the jury that the Regulation was irrelevant, that they were to disabuse their minds of it and were to refrain from any further internet research pertaining to the trial.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Douez v. Facebook, Inc., 2018 BCCA 186

[1] This is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia certifying a claim as a class proceeding. The claim arises out of a practice undertaken by Facebook, under which advertisements displayed to a Facebook member’s “friends” could include a statement that the member “liked” the advertised product, service, or organization. Members were not remunerated for the endorsements, and the plaintiff contends that Facebook did not have their consent to publish them. The plaintiff alleges that the practice constituted a tort under s. 3(2) of the Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 373.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Bessette v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2017 BCCA 264

[30] Alternatively, Mr. Bessette submits in this case there are special circumstances that warrant this Court’s immediate intervention. He draws an analogy to cases where the Court has intervened in the course of a Provincial Court trial to protect solicitor-client or informant privilege. He submits an appeal cannot effectively remedy the violation of his right to have a trial in French. I do not accept the analogy. In cases concerning privilege there is no remedy. The harm caused by disclosure cannot be undone. If Mr. Bessette is tried in English and convicted and it turns out that he was entitled to a trial in French, he will be entitled to a new trial: R. v. Beaulac, 1999 CanLII 684 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Comité paritaire de l’entretien d’édifices publics de la région de Québec c. Modern Concept d’entretien inc., 2017 QCCA 1237

[43] Dans un contrat de franchisage, il n’est pas rare, bien au contraire, que le franchisé soit astreint à respecter diverses contraintes imposées par le franchiseur. Tel est le cas ici où le franchiseur exige du franchisé de respecter des normes de qualité dans les travaux d’entretien. De plus, les demandeurs de service ont eux-mêmes des exigences, notamment quant aux heures où le travail d’entretien doit être fait.

(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.