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. Ruston v Keddco Mfg. (2011) Ltd., 2018 ONSC 5022

[2] The defendant does not dispute the plaintiff was successful in this action. Nor does it dispute that it was served with a Rule 49 offer at the same time as the Statement of Claim, and that the cost consequences as set out in Rule 49.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 194 are triggered commencing as of July 2, 2015. The defendant argues however that the magnitude of costs contained in the plaintiff’s costs outline are neither fair nor reasonable and that they far exceed anything a reasonable party would expect to spend. The defendant therefore requests a cost award of $200,000 plus disbursements.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v. Papasotiriou, 2018 ONCA 719

[44] Both sides rely on different aspects of this passage. On the one hand, it is clear that Mr. Papasotiriou has been convicted of the most serious crime in the Criminal Code. However, this does not foreclose his ability to obtain bail pending appeal. After all, Oland was itself a murder case. See also R. v. Shlah, 2017 ABCA 425 (CanLII). On the other hand, given the proposed plan of release, which involves very strict supervision, there are no longer any “lingering” flight concerns. Moreover, the main ground of appeal “clearly surpasses” the “not frivolous” threshold.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. English v. Manulife Financial Corporation, 2018 ONSC 5135

[37] The Plaintiff’s argument that an employee’s notice of resignation could be rescinded at any time up until the effective date of retirement, flies in the face of basic principles of contract law. Where there is a contract, i.e. an offer and acceptance, the contract – unless it is ambiguous and open to interpretation, will be enforced by the courts. This is not a case where the Plaintiff was induced in any way, shape or form to tender her notice of retirement. She chose to do so willingly and freely, and was in no way coerced when she typed up her notice of retirement. Once her notice of retirement was accepted she was bound by it.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Ville de Montréal c. Octane Stratégie inc., 2018 QCCA 223

[38] Il est possible que le sort réservé par le tribunal à la demande de restitution puisse être différent selon l’identité de la partie qui la présente compte tenu que la loi a comme objectif de protéger l’intérêt public, notamment par le biais du 2e alinéa de l’article 1699 C.c.Q. permettant au tribunal de refuser la restitution si elle a pour effet d’accorder à une partie un avantage indu. Mais cela ne signifie pas que la restitution des prestations n’est jamais un remède à la disposition de celui qui voit son contrat avec une municipalité annulé pour défaut d’autorisation.

(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.