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. v. Goldhar, 2018 SCC 28

[1] This appeal has to do with the rules for the assumption and exercise of jurisdiction in the context of multijurisdictional defamation claims. While these types of claims are not new, the exponential increase in multijurisdictional publications over the Internet has led to growing concerns about libel tourism and the possible assumption of jurisdiction by an unlimited number of forums.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Norkum v Fletcher, 2018 BCSC 904

[58] Mr. Norkum claims that Ms. Fletcher was guilty of the tort of deceit by expressing love for him when she actually considered the relationship to be nothing more than an exchange of money for sex, companionship and availability. He submits that Ms. Fletcher’s email and text communications confirm that she represented that his romantic feelings were reciprocated.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Kent v Martin, 2018 ABCA 202

[40] It is difficult to determine which party was primarily responsible for the 39 pre-trial applications prompted by the breakdown in the relationship between the parties, and which were unnecessary. We recall the trial judge thought both parties were responsible. It is unnecessary for us to resolve this and to attribute fault. We focus instead on the trial judge’s finding that the respondents’ withholding of information they were obliged to disclose in a timely manner was a serious matter warranting a costs sanctions (para 36). We agree.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Groia c. Barreau du Haut‑Canada, 2018 CSC 27

[3] Du même coup, les procès ne sont pas une partie de plaisir, et là n’est pas non plus leur objectif. Le devoir de l’avocat d’agir avec civilité ne s’inscrit pas dans l’abstrait. Il existe plutôt de concert avec une série d’obligations professionnelles qui à la fois restreignent et dictent le comportement de l’avocat. Il faut faire attention de ne pas sacrifier, au nom de la civilité, la liberté d’expression, l’obligation de l’avocat de représenter son client avec vigueur et le droit de l’accusé à une défense pleine et entière.

(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.