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. Green v. CIBC, 2022 ONSC 373 

[93] In MacDonald, Belobaba J. suggested that the most import element of fee approval in mega-cases is the need to apply a principled approach. From my discussion throughout these reasons, I find that of the ten principled factors listed by Perell J. in SNC-Lavalin above, (including: complexity, risk, demonstrated skill, the amount in issue, the importance of the case) my assessment of the first nine factors is “high” and the 10th is irrelevant in this case. Based on normal costs principles therefore, I accept the 30% figure sought.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Thomas and Saik’uz First Nation v Rio Tinto Alcan Inc., 2022 BCSC 15

[354] I mean no disrespect when I say that the constitutional status of Aboriginal rights has little to do with the substance of the plaintiff’s cause of action against RTA. For sure, the constitutional status of those rights imposes limitations upon and could trigger duties to consult and accommodate by the provincial and federal governments who, unlike RTA, also have obligations to the plaintiffs arising from the honour of the Crown and the law of fiduciary obligations.

[355] But this does not mean that third parties, whether corporate entities such as RTA or individuals, are somehow immunized from tort liability for claims founded on Aboriginal interests.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. S. v. A., 2022 ONSC 55

[46] In parenting decisions, success alone is not a sufficient basis for an award of costs because the measure of success belongs to the child. It is the child’s success that is the object of the proceeding. Orders for decision making, parenting plans and incidentals of parenting are formulated on the child’s best interests, not a parent’s best interests. In this manner, a parent may be successful – may even beat his or her Offer to Settle – yet not be awarded costs; or be granted a reduced amount of costs for any number of reasons, such as the prospect of a costs award further exacerbating mutual parental conflict, hobbling a primary care parent’s ability to meet the child’s financial needs or reflecting the court disapproval of an unreasonable course of litigation conduct.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was DHC Avocats inc. c. Dufresne, 2022 QCCS 58

[106] L’obligation de loyauté d’un salarié n’a pas la portée que pourrait avoir une clause de non-concurrence ou de non-sollicitation. Il a le droit de quitter son emploi et de s’y préparer, notamment en cherchant et trouvant un autre emploi et en préparant la transition. Les enseignements de la Cour d’appel dans l’arrêt précité Sahlaoui c. 2330-2029 Québec inc. (Médicus) s’appliquent en l’instance.

(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.