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. R. v. Bradshaw, 2017 SCC 35

[1] Hearsay is an out-of-court statement tendered for the truth of its contents. It is presumptively inadmissible because — in the absence of the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant at the time the statement is made — it is often difficult for the trier of fact to assess its truth. Thus hearsay can threaten the integrity of the trial’s truth-seeking process and trial fairness. However, hearsay may exceptionally be admitted into evidence under the principled exception when it meets the criteria of necessity and threshold reliability.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9

[1] This appeal calls on the Court to consider, once again, the troubling question of the approach to be taken in judicial review of decisions of administrative tribunals. The recent history of judicial review in Canada has been marked by ebbs and flows of deference, confounding tests and new words for old problems, but no solutions that provide real guidance for litigants, counsel, administrative decision makers or judicial review judges. The time has arrived for a reassessment of the question.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Shehu v Iqbal, 2018 ABQB 862

[3] This litigation can be, and has been, described by various players in the court system as “a mess” (Master Wacowich, Transcript, June 12, 2018, p 27, line 7; p 28, line 20) and “plagued by procedural missteps” (Shehu v Iqbal, 2017 ABCA 438 (CanLII) at para 7). There has been confusion, troubling behaviour, and an utter breakdown of communication between counsel. There have been countless overlapping and convoluted steps taken in this matter to get to this point. As I noted in my earlier decision, this case is an illustration of ineffective, costly and frustrating litigation.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was 3091‑5177 Québec inc. (Éconolodge Aéroport) c. Cie canadienne d’assurances générales Lombard, 2018 CSC 43

[1] Ce pourvoi concerne, d’une part, la responsabilité civile d’un établissement hôtelier pour le vol de voitures appartenant à ses clients et, d’autre part, l’application d’une clause d’exclusion de sa police d’assurance responsabilité civile dans cette situation.

[2] Éconolodge Aéroport (« Éconolodge ») est un hôtel offrant la formule hébergement, stationnement et envol (« park and fly ») situé à proximité de l’Aéroport international Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau de Montréal. Sa vocation principale est d’accueillir les voyageurs avant leur départ pour l’aéroport et à leur retour de voyage. Au cours des hivers 2005 et 2006, les voitures de deux clients d’Éconolodge sont volées dans le stationnement de l’hôtel pendant leur séjour à l’étranger. Les propriétaires sont indemnisés pour leur perte par leur assureur respectif, soit AXA Assurances Inc. (maintenant Intact compagnie d’assurance) (« Axa ») et Promutuel Portneuf-Champlain, société mutuelle d’assurance générale (« Promutuel »). Subrogé dans les droits de son assuré, chacun des assureurs intente alors un recours contre Éconolodge pour recouvrer le montant de l’indemnisation versée à son client. Promutuel intente également un recours direct contre l’assureur d’Éconolodge, la Compagnie canadienne d’assurances générales Lombard (maintenant Société d’assurance générale Northbridge) (« Lombard »). Dans le dossier qui l’oppose à Axa, Éconolodge appelle elle-même son assureur Lombard en garantie.

(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.