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. Libfeld v. Libfeld, 2021 ONSC 4670 (CanLII)

[445] As noted above, s. 35(f) of the Partnerships Act allows for the dissolution of a partnership and s. 207 of the OBCA provides this Court with the jurisdiction to wind-up a company in various circumstances, including circumstances where it is just and equitable to do so “for some reason, other than bankruptcy or insolvency….”

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Yahey v British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 1287 (CanLII)

[1834] The Province must be taken to know the promises the Crown made to Indigenous people, and which it is bound to uphold today. Ensuring those rights are respected and upheld, or (in the alternative) ensuring that any infringements of those rights are justified, does not always need to await judicial determination on the specificity or scope of the rights. While some clarification may be needed or of assistance, to proceed on the basis that the treaty right is not known until the court determines what that right is, is unwieldy and ignores the reality of the written document, the known oral promises, the plentiful jurisprudence, and in this case the specifics set out by the Plaintiffs.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Ontario v. Adamson Barbecue Limited and Skelly, 2021 ONSC 4660 (CanLII)

[25] With respect to the constitution of the proceedings before me, Ontario argues that the only substantive relief the respondents sought on their motion was for damages under s. 24(1) of the Charter. No other substantive relief – including a declaration of invalidity of the legislative scheme – was sought in the Notice of Motion, although r. 37.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 requires that the relief sought be stated “precisely.” Ontario argues that, while a motion could have been the proper vehicle to seek to set aside or vary Kimmel J.’s order, the respondents did not seek that relief in their Notice of Motion, nor did they rely on r. 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as they would be required to do under r. 37.06, were they indeed seeking that relief. Ontario argues it thus did not have proper notice of the relief the respondents now seek. Moreover, there is no originating process claiming relief against Ontario by the respondents. Ontario challenges the court’s jurisdiction to grant Charter damages to respondents on an interim motion in the context of Ontario’s application that does not raise the issue.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Ski c. Jauvin, 2021 QCCA 1070 (CanLII)

[52] Or, si on reprend l’exemple de Crépeau, on peut aisément concevoir que l’intensité de l’obligation de sécurité de Ski Bromont envers ses clients (skieurs ou cyclistes) serait variable selon que ceux-ci se trouvent sur les pistes ou dans le télésiège : dans le premier cas, leurs habiletés, leur négligence ou leur imprudence peuvent influer sur la survenance d’un éventuel accident; dans le second, ils ne sont que simples passagers, sans influence sur l’opération de la remontée mécanique. Il en serait de même selon que les clients seront à l’embarquement du télésiège ou en pleine montée.

(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.