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. Law Society of Ontario v. Diamond, 2022 ONLSTH 28

[37] From the consumer perspective, it is important that persons with legal issues be made aware of available legal services. Access to justice is advanced by allowing lawyers and paralegals to advertise their services. Advertising that conveys useful information can enhance consumer choice, awareness of legal entitlements and access to justice.

[38] But it is also important that consumers be protected from irresponsible and misleading advertising. The nature of legal services is such that consumers are not able to verify the quality of those services. As said in Rocket, consumers of professional services are particularly at risk from advertising that is misleading, confusing, or deceptive and from advertising that is not demonstrably true, accurate and verifiable. Consumers need assistance from professionals because expertise is required that most consumers do not have – and it is accordingly difficult for consumers to assess that expertise.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Dhillon v. PM Management Systems Inc., 2014 ONSC 5407

[11] When an uncontemplated event or circumstance occurs after the signing of a contract that without default of either party makes the performance of the contract impossible or would make performance a radically different thing than what was promised or intended by the parties or that strikes at the root of the agreement, both parties may be discharged from further performance and moneys paid may be restored to the party who paid them…

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Martin v. Giesbrecht Griffin Funk & Irvine LLP and Lavergne, 2022 ONSC 1684

[69] The defendants are not entitled to a loss of chance discount where the plaintiff has proven “but for” causation. In Jarbeau v. McLean, 2017 ONCA 115, the Court of Appeal dismissed precisely this sort of “defensive” raising of loss of chance. The Court confirmed that plaintiffs in solicitor’s negligence cases are entitled to full compensation where they can establish standard but -for causation on a balance of probabilities, and that the mere availability of other inferences or contingencies on causation does not trigger a loss of chance analysis. The plaintiff does not have to prove on a balance of probabilities what Ms. Sansome would have done had she received proper ILA. The defendants had the burden to call Ms. Sansome if they wished to assert a counter-factual.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Brunelle c. R., 2021 QCCA 783

[32] Cette évaluation se fait du point de vue de l’accusé seulement et en conjonction avec la réalité d’une personne qui se fait attaquer. Il faut éviter d’analyser cet état subjectif comme si l’accusé avait eu le temps de bien réfléchir à sa situation et de prendre le temps de se raisonner. La réalité de l’accusé qui se fait attaquer est tout autre. Un mélange de sentiments peut survenir, que ce soit la peur, la colère ou la frustration. Les réflexes peuvent prendre le dessus sur les actes réfléchis. Sonder l’esprit de l’accusé constitue une tâche délicate et implique qu’il faut tenir compte de sa réalité selon toutes les circonstances de l’affaire.

(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.