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. Robertson v Arthikharnu, 2015 ABPC 257 (CanLII)

[26] For her services a lawyer is entitled to charge a fair and reasonable fee which will depend upon and reflect many factors. Rule 613 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alberta Regulation 390/68, lists six factors and the commentary under the Code of Conduct, s2.06(1), lists eleven factors. These factors include such matters as the time and effort required, the difficulty of the matter, the skill, labour, and responsibility involved, the results obtained, the terms of the agreement between the lawyer and the client, and others.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Abrametz v Law Society of Saskatchewan, 2020 SKCA 81 (CanLII)

[74] The appellate standards are those specified in Housen v Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 at para 37, [2002] 2 SCR 235. Questions of statutory interpretation and other questions of law – including as to the scope of the decision-maker’s authority – are reviewed on the correctness standard. Where, as here, the right of appeal extends to questions of fact, the standard of review relating to those questions is palpable and overriding error. Absent an extricable error of law, that deferential standard applies to mixed questions of fact and law. A deferential standard also applies to discretionary decisions, in which an appellate court will intervene only if the decision-maker erred in principle, misapprehended or failed to consider material evidence, failed to act judicially, or reached a decision so clearly wrong that it would result in an injustice: Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation v McVeigh, 2018 SKCA 76 at para 26, 428 DLR (4th) 122.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Medernach v Nutrien Ltd., 2021 SKQB 31 (CanLII)

[28] In the past few years there has developed a decided trend, one which is disturbing and growing and which needs to be curtailed immediately. Local registrars, deputy registrars, and clerical staff at our courthouses are NOT the serfs, vassals, legal advisors, arbitrators or clean-up crew for lawyers. They do not work for lawyers, or do the bidding of lawyers, or absorb the slings and arrows hurled by lawyers. They work in the broad public interest. Subjecting any of these dedicated people to rudeness, incivility, prolix or overly prolific communications, or outright bad behaviour is absolutely unacceptable. The registry staff are officers of this Court, just as lawyers are. The registry staff are the eyes and ears, arms and legs of the Court. They are professional, and they must be treated with respect. When counsel are rude or abusive to staff it is the same as being rude or abusive to a judge. Judges will react accordingly.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Pharmaciens (Ordre professionnel des) c. Cabana, 2021 QCCDPHA 5 (CanLII)

[48] 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’intimée et particulièrement le nombre de fois qu’elle a rendu des services pharmaceutiques au patient pendant la période visée, 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’intimée. Par ailleurs, elles exposent avoir pris en considération le principe de la globalité 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.