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. Arksey v Sky Zone Toronto, 2021 ONSC 4594 (CanLII)

[58] The exclusions here do not undermine the terms of the agreement. The defendant was not deceptive in the least. The defendant is not, for example, promising insurance coverage, and then taking it away in exclusions in the small type. The deal here was that the plaintiff could use the defendant’s facility to play the risky game with her friends provided she did not hold the defendant responsible for damages incurred on the grounds waived.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. McAuley v. Canada Post Corporation, 2021 ONSC 4528 (CanLII)

[42] The plaintiff takes the position, and I agree, that the effect of Reg. 73/20 was to extend any running limitation period by 183 days. In other words, all limitation periods subject to the regulation were extended by roughly six months.

[43] Heritage argues that it is wrong to interpret the effect of Reg. 73/20 as extending a limitation period. But it has not articulated why, other than to suggest that the revocation of the regulation effectively revoked any benefit it otherwise may have conferred. I do not accept Heritage’s argument. It appears clear to me that any limitation period that otherwise would have run between March 16, 2020 and September 14, 2020 was suspended during that period. Those days do not get counted in the calculation of the limitation period.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Reference re Code of Civil Procedure (Que.), art. 35, 2021 SCC 27 (CanLII)

[3] The first question raised in these appeals is whether art. 35 para. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C‑25.01 (“C.C.P.”), is consistent with s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Put differently, does granting exclusive jurisdiction over civil claims for less than $85,000 to the Court of Québec create a parallel or shadow court that usurps the role reserved by the Constitution to the superior courts? In this case, the legislature has not transferred a specific jurisdiction to the provincial court, but rather an extensive and exclusive jurisdiction over a vast area at the heart of private law. This case presents an opportunity for this Court to clarify the line that the provinces must not cross in exercising their jurisdiction over the administration of justice. This question represents a new milestone in the evolution of the case law on s. 96, as it concerns a wholesale court‑to‑court transfer of jurisdiction over contractual and extracontractual obligations below a specific monetary limit, which has the effect of removing these matters from the jurisdiction of the superior courts.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Pharmaciens (Ordre professionnel des) c. Huy-Quang Nguyen, 2021 QCCDPHA 31 (CanLII)

[147] Quant au premier volet du test de l’arrêt Sherman[55], le Conseil estime que la protection des droits à la protection contre l’auto-incrimination, au silence et à une défense pleine entière invoqués par l’intimé constitue, sans équivoque, un intérêt public important. La protection de ces droits est essentielle au bon fonctionnement du système judiciaire et à la préservation de la confiance du public.

(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)