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. St. Marthe v. O’Connor, 2019 ONSC 4279

[24] The defendant described the case as a “straightforward personal injury matter”. On the face of it, that is true; there was nothing exceptional in respect of liability or damages. But that tells only half the story. This was hard-fought litigation on both sides and that almost invariably results in the expenditure of time and effort that the parties deem necessary at the time but, after the case is completed, the unsuccessful party characterizes as excessive or unwarranted.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District v. Wastech Services Ltd., 2019 BCCA 66

[63] It is unfortunate that the chambers judge did not expressly answer the two questions of law that were before him. It is clear he believed the arbitrator had erred in finding that Metro’s conduct was “dishonest” (and thus in breach of the duty of good faith) by reason of its being “at odds” with Wastech’s expectations. (See para. 60.) But as we have seen, the judge added at para. 61 that it was hard to see how good faith could be applied in light of the parties’ efforts to “properly balance the interests of the parties”, presumably in formulating the terms of the Agreement. Wastech argues that the chambers judge here was applying a legal test – the terms of which are unclear – to the facts of the case, thus making a finding of mixed law and fact that lies outside the scope of an appeal under the Arbitration Act.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Forest Hill Homes v Ou, 2019 ONSC 4332

[20] I am not convinced that a party in the Plaintiff’s position – a subdivision builder with a standard form of contract for each of its purchasers – can enforce a surprisingly onerous and unexpected term in that contract without at least drawing it to the other party’s attention. The record indicates that indeed the high interest rate was not called to the Defendants’ attention, and there is nothing to suggest that the Defendants, who signed the APS on the same day that it was presented to them and without any legal advice, understood or were cognizant of this term.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Pharmaciens (Ordre professionnel des) c. Lamontagne, 2019 CanLII 58088 (QC CDOPQ)

[2] La plainte reproche à l’intimée d’avoir fait preuve de négligence lors de l’exécution d’une ordonnance au nom de son patient en remettant une bouteille avec une étiquette affichant une posologie autre que celle consignée au dossier, d’avoir omis d’aviser la mère de son patient des ajustements apportés à l’ordonnance et d’avoir omis de consigner au dossier patient l’ordonnance verbale du médecin prescripteur.

(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.