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. Davies v. Cossnell, 2022 ONSC 654

[5] If the parties cannot come to an agreement dates or a timetable, then a conference may be necessary, but as stated in the CW Notice to the Profession for Long Motions, a party acting unreasonably should expect that costs may be awarded against that party at the conference if appropriate.

[6] A civil case conference is not and should not be used to seek the court’s intervention to ensure civility, reasonable or responsive conduct by opposing counsel. Such conduct is already required by the Rules of Professional Conduct.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v. Le, 2019 SCC 34

[160] In view of our application of the three Grant lines of inquiry to the facts of this appeal, and with great respect to the courts below, we do not find this to be a close call. The police crossed a bright line when, without permission or reasonable grounds, they entered into a private backyard whose occupants were “just talking” and “doing nothing wrong”. The police requested identification, told one of the occupants to keep his hands visible and asked pointed questions about who they were, where they lived, and what they were doing in the backyard. This is precisely the sort of police conduct that the Charter was intended to abolish. Admission of the fruits of that conduct would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. This Court has long recognized that, as a general principle, the end does not justify the means (R. v. Mack, 1988 CanLII 24 (SCC), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903, at p. 961). The evidence must be excluded.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v. McColman, 2021 ONCA 382

[64] In this case, the asserted police power falls within the general scope of the duties to prevent crime and protect life and property. Police officers have broad duties in relation to the public, as reflected in s. 42 of Ontario’s Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 15. Included within these duties, is “the preservation of the peace, the prevention of crime, and the protection of life and property”: Dedman, at p. 32. The power exercised in this case can be conceptualized as an extension of the police duties to prevent crime (impaired driving) and to protect life and property (the harms associated with impaired driving). Pursuing drivers off the highway onto private property to conduct random sobriety checks is related to these duties. The carnage of impaired driving knows no bounds when it comes to the difference between public and private property.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Prévost-Masson c. Trust Général du Canada, [2001] 3 RCS 882, 2001 CSC 87

[25] Par ailleurs, au sens strict du terme, le concept de solidarité passive ne s’applique pas. L’article 1106 C.c.B.C. porte sur la responsabilité délictuelle et ne vise pas directement la situation juridique où deux dettes portant sur une même somme d’argent proviennent de deux sources distinctes. L’appelante soutient que le seul concept qui tiendrait compte correctement de la situation serait celui de l’obligation in solidum. Un auteur français, F. Chabas, souligne bien les distinctions, parfois délicates, qui existent entre les concepts d’obligations solidaires, indivisibles et in solidum. Ce dernier concept vise à aménager la coexistence de plusieurs dettes portant sur un même tout.

(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.