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. Cybulsky v. Hamilton Health Sciences, 2021 HRTO 213 (CanLII)

[113] This Tribunal stated in Moore v. Ferro (Estate), 2019 HRTO 526 (“Moore”) at para. 183, that in certain circumstances, it is a violation of the right to be free from discrimination protected under Part I of the Code where a respondent fails to take appropriate steps to respond to an allegation of discrimination. In Moore, the Tribunal referenced Ananda v. Humber College Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning, 2017 HRTO 611 at para. 121 at which the Tribunal stated:

[T]here are circumstances where it is inherently discriminatory for a respondent to fail to appropriately address or investigate a complaint of discrimination or harassment, even where the complaint is later found to be unsupported, on the basis that a respondent’s actions in failing to take such a complaint seriously and to properly respond to such a complaint violate the dignity interests of the person making the complaint in a way that is additional to and independent of the underlying allegations raised in the complaint.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Francis v. Ontario, 2021 ONCA 197 (CanLII)

[141] If a Superintendent applies the policy on administrative segregation to an inmate in a negligent manner, that is, in a manner that causes injury or harm, then Ontario is liable for that injury or harm. This negligence could include applying segregation in a manner that constitutes solitary confinement; applying segregation to seriously mentally ill inmates; imposing segregation for periods of 15 days or more on any inmate; and other like decisions that run contrary to established medical evidence as to the consequences. Such a result is beyond the reach of any expanded definition of policy contained in s. 11(5)(c) of the CLPA as we would interpret it.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Cura v. Aviva Insurance Canada, 2021 ONSC 2290 (CanLII)

[34] A review of these decisions makes clear that counsel’s attempts to put up roadblocks to prevent medical examinations otherwise compliant with s. 44 from taking place as mandated have been unsuccessful. The proper place to raise any issue about the independence of a medical assessment is before the ultimate trier of fact. If there is any air of reality to the suggestion that counsel or the insurer or a CanAssess ghostwriter improperly influenced an expert witness, cross-examination before the trier of fact is the means to expose it, rather than premature applications such as the one before this court.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Breault c. R., 2021 QCCA 505 (CanLII)

[61] Pour résumer ma pensée, j’évoquerai une hypothèse. Une personne accepte d’obéir à l’ordre avant que l’ADA ne soit sur place. Cette personne patiente avec les policiers jusqu’à ce que l’ADA arrive. S’il n’arrive pas « immédiatement », trop tard (comme les 30 minutes de Grant ou les 10 ou 15 minutes de Petit), cette personne pourrait alors revenir sur sa décision et refuser de fournir un échantillon, sans être déclarée coupable, vu l’invalidité de l’ordre. Pourtant, en suivant la logique de l’arrêt Degiorgio, si cette même personne avait refusé ce même ordre dès le départ, elle pourrait faire face à une accusation de refus, sans même que l’ADA soit livré en temps utile. Je suis incapable de suivre un tel raisonnement selon lequel un même ordre pourrait être à la fois valide et invalide, selon le moment où le conducteur a refusé d’y obéir. Un même ordre est « immédiat » ou il ne l’est pas, et on doit pouvoir y répondre immédiatement ou pas; il doit être valide ou non, peu importe le moment où le conducteur exprime son refus.

(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.