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. Dr. Chuang v. Fogler Rubinoff, 2021 ONSC 5942

[21] The parties submit that none of the concerns expressed by the Court of Appeal in the recent decision of Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP, 2017 ONCA 783, are relevant in this case. The parties are already before the court pursuant to the Defendant’s summary judgment motion and therefore granting partial summary judgment would not cause added delay, expense, wasted judicial resources, or lead to inconsistent findings. On the contrary, it is submitted that granting of partial summary judgment will streamline the trial process and will also avoid potentially inconsistent findings between this Honourable Court and the trial judge on the date of discoverability. I agree that this is one of these “rare” cases where the issue of the “limitation period” can be “bifurcated from the main action and that can be dealt with expeditiously and in a cost-effective manner”.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817, 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC)

1 L’Heureux-Dubé J. — Regulations made pursuant to s. 114(2) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, empower the respondent Minister to facilitate the admission to Canada of a person where the Minister is satisfied, owing to humanitarian and compassionate considerations, that admission should be facilitated or an exemption from the regulations made under the Act should be granted. At the centre of this appeal is the approach to be taken by a court to judicial review of such decisions, both on procedural and substantive grounds. It also raises issues of reasonable apprehension of bias, the provision of written reasons as part of the duty of fairness, and the role of children’s interests in reviewing decisions made pursuant to s. 114(2).

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Myers v. Peel County Board of Education[1981] 2 SCR 21, 1981 CanLII 27 (SCC)

The attribution of liability to the respondent depends upon a finding of fact by the trial judge that the matting in use was inadequate, and a finding that the presence of a supervising teacher in the exercise room could, on a balance of probability, have prevented the accident. It will therefore be necessary to consider the record and see whether there was evidence before the trial judge on which the finding of the inadequacy of the mats could rest and whether the conclusion, that the absence of supervision at the time of the accident was a contributing factor to the damage suffered by the appellant, is sustainable.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Beaudry et autres) c. Aluminerie de Bécancour inc., 2018 QCTDP 12:

[317] En matière salariale, comme en l’instance, le seul fait que le salaire payé à un groupe d’employés soit inférieur à celui versé à d’autres n’est donc pas suffisant pour être considéré discriminatoire. Il n’y a discrimination que si le groupe qui reçoit une rémunération moindre effectue un travail équivalent[132] et si la preuve prépondérante établit que la distinction est fondée sur un motif interdit par l’article 10 de la Charte[133], l’âge ou la condition sociale en l’occurrence[134].

[318] Pour décider si un travail est équivalent à un autre, il faut tenir compte des qualifications requises des différentes catégories d’employés, de l’effort requis, des responsabilités assumées et des conditions de travail[135]. « Le résultat final de l’exercice doit conduire à écarter les pratiques ou structures, négociées ou non, qui reposent sur des mœurs sociales et culturelles qui contribuent à créer de la discrimination »[136].

(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.