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. Doering, 2020 ONSC 5618 (CanLII)

[48] The value of human life and the corresponding right of citizens to protection from harm, are entitlements attaching to all citizens, including those who suffer personal challenges, such as drug addiction. I acknowledge, as I did in my reasons for judgment, that police often face unpredictable and dangerous situations. They must be empowered to protect themselves and the public from persons who, through ingestion of drugs, pose a threat to others. However, the ingestion of drugs can also endanger the drug user, as this case so poignantly illustrates. A person who is in a precarious or uncertain medical state is entitled to treatment, whatever the cause. It is beyond the scope of these reasons to address the science of addiction and the recognition that it is a disease rather than a moral failing. Suffice to say that persons whose medical conditions are self-induced are no less deserving of treatment or care. This is particularly so when such individuals are in police custody and unable to secure such treatment for themselves.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick2008 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. Maginnis and Magnaye v. FCA Canada et al, 2020 ONSC 5462 (CanLII)

[27] I must pause here to make an obvious point. The “diesel-gate” scandal involving some of the world’s largest automobile companies and auto parts suppliers was egregious and deserves strong condemnation. The resulting criminal prosecutions, fines and penalties in the hundreds of millions of dollars and nation-wide class actions to recover for widespread losses – are completely justified. But this doesn’t mean that every proposed class action that relates to the “diesel-gate” scandal will be automatically certified. The plaintiffs must still satisfy the requirements set out in the CPA and provide, at the very least, some evidence of compensable loss.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Pharmaciens (Ordre professionnel des) c. Paré, 2020 QCCDPHA 31 (CanLII)

[81] Il appert des témoignages entendus ainsi que des représentations des avocats que les parties, étant au fait de l’ensemble du dossier, ont eus des échanges sérieux qui ont amené un plaidoyer de culpabilité et la présentation d’une recommandation conjointe sur sanction modulée en fonctions des circonstances spécifiques au dossier.

[82] Le Conseil reconnaît l’importance de favoriser la certitude dans les discussions en vue d’un règlement et les avantages pour l’administration du système disciplinaire qui découlent de la négociation d’un plaidoyer de culpabilité.

(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.