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. Miller v Edmonton (City), 2020 ABQB 784 (CanLII)

[23] One point where I disagree with Edmonton is that this is an instance where Mackin v New Brunswick (Minister of Finance) would apply, and that allegations that a law is unconstitutional cannot ground a claim for damages. When conducting procedure pursuant to r 3.68, pleadings are presumed to be factually correct (Ernst v Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2014 ABCA 285 at para 13), with the limited exception where allegations are absurd, highly implausible, or hyperbole (Arabi v Alberta, 2014 ABQB 295 at paras 74-78). Arguably, Mr. Miller’s claims that the COVID-19 pandemic is “a hoax”, and/or the product of a hidden conspiratorial hand fall into that exception, but the allegations Mr. Miller makes also match “conduct that is clearly wrong, in bad faith or an abuse of power”: Mackin v New Brunswick (Minister of Finance) at para 78.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Engel v Prentice, 2020 ABCA 462 (CanLII)

[26] The appellants argue that the interpretation of the chambers judge leaves s 38.1 of the Election Act without any purpose. On the contrary, the purpose of s 38.1 is to confirm that elections will be held every four years, as opposed to every five years under the Charter, unless “the Lieutenant Governor sees fit”. Merely because the section does not provide a fixed and unalterable rule does not mean it has no purpose.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Ice District Development Partnership v Hahn, 2020 ABQB 786 (CanLII)

[53] In circumstances like this, I am not sure how often the balance of convenience will favour the person who has diverted trust monies (or, more precisely here, diverted monies intended to be held in trust, before they reached the intended trustee). As the author of the problem, the diverting party should not be particularly surprised, and cannot realistically be held to complain, about the effects of an injunction aimed both at revealing (through the disclosure elements of the proposed order) and freezing his assets i.e. as part of the apparently wronged party’s efforts to trace its property.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Pharmaciens (Ordre professionnel des) c. Saindon, 2020 QCCDPHA 50 (CanLII)

[43] En l’espèce, au soutien de leur recommandation conjointe sur sanction, les parties exposent avoir pris en considération les critères applicables en matière de sanction disciplinaire, les facteurs objectifs des infractions commises par l’intimé, les facteurs subjectifs qui lui sont propres comme enseignés par la Cour d’appel dans l’affaire Pigeon c. Daigneault[13], le risque de récidive[14] ainsi que les précédents jurisprudentiels en matière semblable à celles qui sont reprochées à l’intimé.

(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.