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. Solanki v. Reilly, 2021 ONSC 6694

[16] In this case, the plaintiffs must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the accident caused them to sustain a “permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.”

[17] The terms “serious”, “permanent”, “impairment” and “important function” are defined by regulation under the Insurance Act. That same regulation also sets out the evidentiary requirements the plaintiff must meet in order to demonstrate he falls within an exception to the general immunity to damages, including that there must be evidence from one or more qualified physicians who conclude the injured person meets the elements of this test and evidence that corroborates the alleged change in function: O. Reg. 461/96, as amended by O. Reg. 381/03

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37

[1] The law of self‑defence plays an important part in the criminal law and in society. At the core of the defence is the sanctity of human life and physical inviolability of the person. Preserving life and limb operates to explain both why the law allows individuals to resist external threats and why the law imposes limits on the responsive action taken against others in its name. Life is precious. Any legal basis for taking it must be defined with care and circumspection (R. v. McIntosh, 1995 CanLII 124 (SCC), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686, at para. 82).

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v. Oakes, 1986 CanLII 46 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 103

1. THE CHIEF JUSTICE‑‑This appeal concerns the constitutionality of s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N‑1. The section provides, in brief, that if the Court finds the accused in possession of a narcotic, he is presumed to be in possession for the purpose of trafficking. Unless the accused can establish the contrary, he must be convicted of trafficking. The Ontario Court of Appeal held that this provision constitutes a “reverse onus” clause and is unconstitutional because it violates one of the core values of our criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence, now entrenched in s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Crown has appealed.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Hooper c. Primeau, 2017 QCCS 4998

[19] Les articles 1451 et 1452 C.c.Q. traitent de la simulation : il y a simulation lorsque des parties à une entente conviennent d’exprimer leur volonté réelle, non pas dans le contrat apparent, mais plutôt dans un contrat caché, souvent appelé contre-lettre. Les parties qui usent de la simulation sont liées par les termes de la contre-lettre, celle-ci l’emportant sur le contrat apparent :

1451. Il y a simulation lorsque les parties conviennent d’exprimer leur volonté réelle non point dans un contrat apparent, mais dans un contrat secret, aussi appelé contre-lettre.

Entre les parties, la contre-lettre l’emporte sur le contrat apparent.

1452. Les tiers de bonne foi peuvent, selon leur intérêt, se prévaloir du contrat apparent ou de la contre-lettre, mais s’il survient entre eux un conflit d’intérêts, celui qui se prévaut du contrat apparent est préféré.

(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.