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. Das v. George Weston Limited, 2018 ONCA 1053

[175] In the present case, the appellants assert that Loblaws assumed responsibility for the safety of the workers in Rana Plaza and anyone else attending there based on its relationship with New Wave. The argument for Loblaws’ assumption of responsibility is grounded in four essential factors: the incorporation of Loblaws’ CSR Standards into its contracts with Pearl Global; the engagement of Bureau Veritas to conduct social audits to gauge compliance with those standards and the receipt of Bureau Veritas’ reports; reliance by workers who saw Bureau Veritas personnel conducting audits; and Loblaws’ ability to exercise a degree of control over New Wave by cancelling any product orders for non-compliance with its CSR Standards. The appellants submit that Loblaws could have required New Wave to fix the structural problems in the factory, sent the workers home or ensured that the manufacture of its products took place elsewhere. They also submit that, given the history of poor factory conditions for workers in Bangladesh, including an apparent lack of enforcement of codes and standards, it was foreseeable that if Loblaws did not enforce its standards, workers would be forced to work in unsafe facilities.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R v Delorme, 2019 ABQB 2

[94] I have greater faith in the National Parole Board than did Parliament in 2011. It appears then that they did not trust the Parole Board to keep dangerous people in jail. They will have the great benefit of hindsight as to how Mr. Delorme has actually acted over 25 years of incarceration. They are, in my view, in a far better position to view rehabilitation and public safety than am I, relying on a crystal ball into the future.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571

[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels – there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Dans l’affaire du: Renvoi relatif à la Loi sur la non-discrimination génétique édictée par les articles 1 à 7 de la Loi visant à interdire et à prévenir la discrimination génétique, 2018 QCCA 2193

[2] La Loi visant à interdire et à prévenir la discrimination génétique (la « Loi ») constitue-t-elle un exercice valide de la compétence du Parlement en matière criminelle? Pour répondre à une telle question de partage des compétences, il faut, comme l’enseigne la Cour suprême, déterminer d’abord le caractère véritable de la législation contestée, c’est-à-dire « identifier la “matière” sur laquelle elle porte essentiellement »[2], son objet principal[3], pour ensuite vérifier le rattachement de cet objet à l’un ou l’autre des champs de compétence de l’autorité législative qui l’a adoptée[4], en l’occurrence, celle de l’article 91(27) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867, chef de compétence invoqué par le Parlement[5].

(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.