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. Anglin v Resler, 2020 ABCA 184 (CanLII)

[16] Vicarious liability is not a distinct tort but “a theory that holds one person responsible for the misconduct of another because of the relationship between them”: 671122 Ontario v Sagaz Industries Canada, 2001 SCC 59, para 25, [2001] 2 SCR 983. The Supreme Court in Bazley v Curry, 1999 CanLII 692 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 534, paras 30-31, outlined two policy considerations underlying vicarious liability: (1) those who suffer wrongs should have a just and practical remedy; and (2) the enterprise that created the risk should bear the loss. Major J stated in Sagaz at para 34: “[i]f the employer does not control the activities of the worker, the policy justifications underlying vicarious liability will not be satisfied.” Accordingly, the key to vicarious liability is establishing the requisite relationship between the defendant and tortfeasor: Philip H Osborne, The Law of Torts, 4th ed (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2011) at 361.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Ontario (Attorney General) v. G, 2020 SCC 38 (CanLII)

[1] People with mental illnesses face persistent stigma and prejudicial treatment in Canadian society, which has imposed profound and widespread social, political, and legal disadvantage on them. In particular, discriminatory perceptions that those with mental illnesses are inherently and indefinitely dangerous persist. These perceptions have served to support some of the most unjust treatment of those with mental illnesses. As this case demonstrates, such perceptions still find some expression in legislation.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. 1688782 Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods Inc., 2020 SCC 35 (CanLII)

[1] This appeal is brought by 1688782 Ontario Inc., a former franchisee of Mr. Submarine Limited (“Mr. Sub”) and the class representative of 424 other Mr. Sub franchisees (“appellant” or “Mr. Sub franchisees”). The appellant says that class members were affected by the decision of the respondents (collectively, “Maple Leaf Foods”) to recall meat products that had been processed in a Maple Leaf Foods factory in which a listeria outbreak had occurred. Specifically, it says that they experienced a shortage of product for six to eight weeks causing economic loss and reputational injury due to their association with contaminated meat products. By this class proceeding, the appellant advances claims in tort law against Maple Leaf Foods, seeking compensation for lost past and future sales, past and future profits, capital value of the franchises and goodwill.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Marion, 2020 QCCQ 6715 (CanLII)

[29] L’actus reus de l’outrage au tribunal consiste en un comportement qui nuit sérieusement à l’administration de la justice ou l’entrave ou un comportement qui entraîne un risque sérieux de nuire à l’administration de la justice ou de l’entraver. L’exigence de faute est que le comportement en question soit délibéré ou intentionnel, ou encore qu’il démontre un degré d’indifférence assimilable à de l’insouciance[10]. La mens rea peut consister en l’intention de miner l’autorité de la Cour[11].

(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.