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. Pellegrin v. Wheeldon, 2020 BCPC 143 (CanLII)

[105] I now consider punitive damages. As stated in the Huff case, punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant, and set an example for others who might consider undertaking similar conduct. The law in British Columbia is clear: self-help remedies for a trespass or nuisance do not extend to destroying another person’s property, particularly where there is no urgency to the situation, nor harm to the plaintiff by the trespass or nuisance. People need to be discouraged from similar “bad neighbour” type behaviour…

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Province of New Brunswick v. Grant Thornton, 2020 NBCA 18 (CanLII)

[101] At the end of the day, the analysis for s. 5(1)(a) purposes remains faithful to Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse. A plaintiff discovers a material fact when he or she knows or ought to know that fact by the exercise of due diligence. Perceptions or assumptions based on suspicion, guesswork, speculation or any other means short of knowledge, actual or imputed, are insufficient to trigger the two-year limitation period. What is required is knowledge, actual or imputed, of facts that accord the claimant a legal right to a judicial remedy for the defendant’s loss-causing act or omission. Unless the Province discovered more than two years before the action was commenced that Grant Thornton’s key audit-based confirmations/representations were not only erroneous, but also the fruit of a sub-standard audit, s. 5(1)(a) is not engaged.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Fresco v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2020 ONSC 4288 (CanLII)

[42] Of course, the same point can be made about any system that records the hours worked by any employee. In my view, one must begin with a neutral assumption that any record of “hours worked” are just that – unless there is credible evidence to the contrary. If the defendant bank intends to argue the unreliability of time-stamps as a reasonable measure of hours worked, it should provide actual evidence to support this submission, not speculation. For example, the bank may be able to provide evidence that as a matter of accepted routine or bank culture, many employees would log in and then take personal time to have breakfast, speak by phone to family or friends or play on-line computer games, before actually starting to work. I frankly doubt that any such evidence will be forthcoming but it’s possible. In any event, no such evidence was presented to the court at this stage.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Pharmaciens (Ordre professionnel des) c. Binette, 2020 QCCDPHA 29 (CanLII)

[37] Conformément à l’arrêt Anthony-Cook[3] de la Cour suprême du Canada, c’est le critère de l’intérêt public qui doit guider le juge lorsqu’il est saisi d’une recommandation conjointe des parties relativement à la peine à imposer à une personne déclarée coupable d’une infraction criminelle.

[38] Dans l’affaire Génier[4], le Tribunal des professions confirme que ce critère s’applique en matière disciplinaire lorsqu’une suggestion commune des parties est présentée au sujet de la sanction.

(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.