Today

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. Ghotra, 2020 ONCA 373 (CanLII)

[23] The case law, however, has specified a narrow conception of “providing an opportunity,” with the analysis often focusing on whether the police or the accused took the initiative in the interaction and when: Bayat; R. v. Imoro, 2010 ONCA 122, 251 C.C.C. (3d) 131; R. v. Swan, 2009 BCCA 142, 244 C.C.C. (3d) 198. The narrow conception of “providing an opportunity” excludes investigative techniques where the originating criminal spark comes from the accused.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Tataryn v. Diamond & Diamond, 2021 ONSC 2624 (CanLII)

[75] The named Defendant, 2398968 Ontario Inc., is the corporate owner of the “Diamond & Diamond” trademarks. Nothing in the Claim establishes any relationship between this company and the Plaintiff, and the pleading fails to reference any facts connecting them or creating a cause of action against the corporate trademark owner. It is well established in trademark jurisprudence that the owner of a mark is not legally responsible for torts allegedly perpetrated by its user: Batten v Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., 2017 ONSC 53, at para. 153.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Holt v. Greig, 2021 ONSC 2683 (CanLII)

[21] Section 103 of the Courts of Justice Act requires that a party wishing to put others on notice of its claim to an interest in land must obtain and register a CPL. When obtained, a CPL warns any interested party that there exists an outstanding claim against the property and, as such, it protects the claim pending final determination on the merits. A CPL does not, however, create an interest in land, see Avan v. Benarroch, 2017 ONSC 4729 at para. 15.

[22] In deciding whether to grant leave to issue a CPL, I am guided by the following principles as discussed by Master Glustein (as he then was), in Perruzza v. Spatone, 2010 ONSC 841 at para. 20:…

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Henderson c. Procureur général du Québec, 2021 QCCA 565 (CanLII)

[88] La conduite des parties dans de telles négociations serait régie par les principes du fédéralisme, de la démocratie, du constitutionnalisme et de la primauté du droit et de la protection des minorités[104]. Ces principes n’obligeraient pas les autres provinces et le gouvernement fédéral de donner leur assentiment à la sécession, sous réserve seulement de la négociation des détails logistiques pour ce faire, mais plutôt imposerait l’obligation de négocier pour traiter des intérêts du gouvernement fédéral, du Québec et des autres provinces, d’autres participants, ainsi que des droits de tous les Canadiens à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur du Québec[105]. Ce serait assurément des négociations difficiles et complexes et il est concevable qu’elles aboutissent à une impasse[106].

[89] Par contre, l’évaluation de ce qui constitue une question « claire » et une majorité « claire » dans un référendum qui pourrait déclencher le processus de négociation, de même que le contenu ou la conduite des négociations et les implications d’un échec de celles-ci relèvent principalement, sinon exclusivement, des acteurs politiques[107] :

(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.

Start the discussion!

Leave a Reply

(Your email address will not be published or distributed)