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. Sandomirsky v. Attallah, 2018 ONSC 5012

[9] I therefore deem their marriage to be valid by the power vested in me by the Government of Canada and pursuant to section 31 of the Marriage Act.

[10] They are hereby ordered to live happy together forever.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Zuk v Alberta Dental Association and College, 2018 ABCA 270

[82] Dr. Zuk challenges the constitutionality of the Hearing Tribunal’s findings that various statements in his article in the Red Deer Express, his book and on his websites breached advertising regulations in the Code and constituted unprofessional conduct under the HPA. His argument is not entirely clear but it appears to have two strands. First, the Hearing Tribunal wrongly held that the published statements constituted advertising within the meaning of the Code with the result it restricted Dr. Zuk’s freedom expression more than was necessary and did so without authority. Second, the Hearing Tribunal and the Council did not properly “take into account” (i.e. balance) Dr. Zuk’s right to free expression against the need to protect the reputation and integrity of the profession when they found that his “political” speech breached advertising provisions of the Code and constituted unprofessional conduct.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Nelson v. Lavoie, 2018 ONSC 4489

[56] Secondly, I cannot accept the defendants’ position concerning the right time for the institution of appropriate proceedings. It would not have been appropriate for Ms. Nelson to institute an action without a final determination from the CRA. Her counsel started a review process by notifying the CRA that something may be amiss. The CRA did not make a final decision until September 2011. Until then, the IPP’s compliance with the regulation remained uncertain. Ms. Nelson could not know that the advice she received from the defendants was in fact wrong. On September 28, 2011, the CRA made the decision to deregister the plan. Her suspicions and doubts about the plan crystallized with that notice. There was no doubt, at that point, that she would be responsible for tax arrears and additional penalties. It is only at that time that it was appropriate to institute an action. Had Ms. Nelson instituted an action in the fall of 2009, she would have very likely faced a summary judgment application dismissing her claim.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Léveillé c. Procureure générale du Québec, 2017 QCCS 3762

[1] Le demandeur Philippe Léveillé soutient qu’est contraire à l’économie générale du système public d’assurance maladie la pratique de certains professionnels de la santé de réclamer des frais accessoires aux frais assurés pour des soins dispensés en clinique médicale ou optométrique privée[1]. Elle consiste selon lui à exiger des personnes assurées le paiement de sommes excédant le montant versé par la RAMQ pour le service assuré prodigué sous couvert du paiement des médicaments et agents anesthésiques requis. C’est ce qu’il nomme la surfacturation illégale de frais accessoires.

(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.