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. Eabametoong First Nation v. Minister of Northern Development and Mines, 2018 ONSC 4316

[1] On March 31, 2016, The Director of Exploration for the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (“the Director”) granted an exploration permit (the “Permit”) to Landore Resource Canada Inc. (“Landore”). The Permit authorizes mine exploration drilling in an area in Northern Ontario that is within the traditional territory of the Eabametoong First Nation (“Eabametoong”).

[2] On this application for judicial review Eabametoong seeks to set aside the Permit on the basis that the Director failed to properly discharge the Crown’s duty to consult. (…)

[3] For the reasons that follow I would grant the application and set aside the Director’s decision to grant the Permit. I would remit the application back to the Director pending completion of adequate consultation with Eabametoong.

  1. Cirillo v Ontario, 2018 ONSC 4359

[1] This motion arises out of cross-examinations conducted on affidavits filed by the Plaintiff in support of her upcoming motion for certification of the proposed class action. One of the affidavits is that of the Plaintiff herself, and the other is that of her proposed expert witness, Dr. Nicole Myers.

[2] The Defendant has pursued a similar approach with both affiants. It insists on strict adherence to the Rules of Civil Procedure and the law of evidence, but is overly enthusiastic in that approach. As a consequence, it has asked for too much.


[20] The Plaintiff and her proposed expert have not attempted to hide anything from the Defendant in these cross-examinations. They have produced all of the documentation that is “proportionate to the needs of the certification motion and what is necessary to inform the certification hearing”: Daniells v McLellan, 2016 ONSC 5958 (CanLII). If the courts were to require affiants and experts to produce the documentation and information sought by the Defendant here, it would not contribute to the just resolution of motions but rather would “frustrate the timely and cost-effective adjudication of civil disputes”: Moore v Getahun, at para 65.

  1. Anjum v. Doe, 2018 ONSC 4344

[1] [Plaintiff] retained a personal injury lawyer (…) by means of a contingency fee retainer agreement entered into on September 28, 2010, to undertake an action on his behalf for damages for personal injuries he had sustained in a motor vehicle collision several days earlier. [Counsel] now moves for an Order removing him as [plaintiff]’s, lawyer of record, and for a charging order against the proceeds of any settlement or judgment that [plaintiff] recovers in the action.


[23] For the foregoing reasons, an Order will issue in the terms of the draft Order filed, which I have signed, removing [counsel] and his firm as [plaintiff]’s lawyer of record in the action, and granting him a charging order against the proceeds of any settlement or judgment recovered in the action.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Wärtsilä Canada inc. c. Transport Desgagnés inc., 2017 QCCA 1471:

[9] Les appelantes du groupe Wärtsilä vendent aux Intimées, le groupe TDi, pour l’un de ses navires, une assise de moteur et un vilebrequin remis à neuf (a new bedplade and a reconditioned crankshaft). Le prix de vente est de plus d’un million de dollars. (…)

 [11] Quelque dix mois plus tard, le moteur subit un bris majeur et le navire est immobilisé durant plusieurs mois. Le préjudice des Intimées – le montant en est admis – est de 5 661 830 $.

[12] Il est aussi admis que la cause du bris est le serrage insuffisant d’une bielle d’un des pistons fixée au vilebrequin.

[13] Selon TDi, cette insuffisance est le fait des employés de l’usine de Wärtsilä lors de l’assemblage alors que selon celle-ci, elle résulte plutôt d’une intervention postérieure des employés de TDi.


[86] There are three main issues in this appeal :

(a) Is the claim to be decided under Canadian maritime law or Quebec’s civil law?

(b) If Canadian maritime law applies, were the appellants responsible for the damages which occurred to the main engine of the Camilla?

(c) If so, can the appellants rely on the terms of the contract to exclude or limit their liability?

(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.