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. Teamsters Local Union 847 v Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, 2022 CanLII 544 (ON LA)

20. It seems to me that that by opposing the disclosure of vaccine status the Union is indeed challenging the vaccine mandate. I do not see how the Employer can enforce a vaccine mandate without requiring disclosure of an employee’s vaccine status. Without that information it cannot ensure that all employees are vaccinated. In that regard the arbitral authority makes it clear that Employers are indeed entitled to seek disclosure of an employee’s vaccine status to the extent necessary to administer a vaccine policy in the workplace, particularly if the information is secured and protected from unnecessary disclosure. I endorse and agree with those authorities. I also accept that the Employer has put procedures in place to secure and adequately protect the confidentiality of any such information.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 (CanLII), [2012] 1 SCR 433

[37] The fundamental principle of sentencing (i.e., proportionality) is intimately tied to the fundamental purpose of sentencing — the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society through the imposition of just sanctions. Whatever weight a judge may wish to accord to the various objectives and other principles listed in the Code, the resulting sentence must respect the fundamental principle of proportionality. Proportionality is the sine qua non of a just sanction. First, the principle ensures that a sentence reflects the gravity of the offence. This is closely tied to the objective of denunciation. It promotes justice for victims and ensures public confidence in the justice system. As Wilson J. expressed in her concurring judgment in Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, 1985 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, at p. 533: …

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. K.M. v. J.R., 2022 ONSC 111

[46] Section 16(1) of the Divorce Act provides that the court shall take into consideration only the best interests of a child when making a parenting order or a contact order. Section 16(2) says when considering best interest factors, primary consideration is to be given to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being. Pierre v. Pierre, 2021 ONSC 5650 (SCJ).

[47] It is also in a child’s best interests when making a parenting order that his or her caregiver be physically and emotionally safe. Q.M.S.Q. v. S.Q., 2021 ONCJ 334 (OCJ); N.S. v. A.N.S., 2021 ONSC 5283 (SCJ).

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Droit de la famille — 212444, 2021 QCCS 5387

[13] Toutefois, l’enfant est vacciné de sorte qu’il bénéficie d’une certaine protection à l’égard du virus. Est-ce suffisant pour lui permettre de côtoyer son père ? Le Tribunal estime que ce n’est pas le cas. En effet, il est de connaissance judiciaire que la protection n’est pas totale, et qu’elle semble même être réduite face au variant Omicron qui se propage actuellement au Québec. Il est également de connaissance judiciaire que ce variant est hautement contagieux.

[14] D’ailleurs, il est étonnant que Monsieur plaide que le risque, pour les personnes non vaccinées, soit avant tout pour elles-mêmes. Ce faisant, ne reconnaît-il pas une certaine efficacité au vaccin ? Pourquoi, dans ce cas, refuse-t-il de se faire vacciner ? Comme on l’a vu, il ne fait qu’exprimer « des réserves » à cet égard, sans les justifier ni les expliquer.

(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.