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. Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 SCC 40

[84] In light of the foregoing reasons, it has become necessary to clarify the test for complicity under art. 1F(a). To exclude a claimant from the definition of “refugee” by virtue of art. 1F(a), there must be serious reasons for considering that the claimant has voluntarily made a significant and knowing contribution to the organization’s crime or criminal purpose.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Fraser Health Authority v British Columbia General Employees’ Union, 2022 CanLII 25560 (BC LA)

28 I must also consider the full context within which this case arose and which existed at the time of termination. Unlike with the Single Site Order, the provincial parties did not negotiate an agreement that allowed unvaccinated employees to be put on unpaid COVID-19 leave and there was otherwise no collective agreement requirement to do so. Further, in November 2021, the Omicron variant had taken hold and was posing serious challenges regarding transmission and hospitalization. Then and now, the PHO has stated we are still in a pandemic, not endemic, stage. Unlike other PHO orders, the Hospital and Community Order does not include an expiry date. Importantly, I find that, at the time of the termination, the PHO had not provided any indication that the Order would be lifted in the foreseeable future and, indeed, has repeatedly stated that vaccination is a key tool in the continued response to the virus both in the short-term and long-term. It is speculative to opine when the pandemic may end and even so, it would be speculation to assume that the vaccination requirement in the Order will be lifted once the PHO determines we have moved to an endemic stage. These realities were acknowledged by Mr. Camilleri in cross-examination.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v. Stairs, 2022 SCC 11

[1] This appeal concerns the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest in a person’s home. In particular, the Court has been asked to delineate the proper balance under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms between an accused’s privacy interests in their home and valid law enforcement objectives, when the police search an accused’s home incident to their lawful arrest. As we will explain, a proper balancing of those factors requires modifying the common law standard governing searches incident to arrest.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was R c. Delisle, 2022 QCCS 1160

[285] Au moyen de ces expertises, le requérant veut en premier lieu établir quelles sont les normes auxquelles les pathologistes judiciaires sont assujettis lorsqu’ils pratiquent une autopsie à la suite d’un décès suspect. Cette preuve lui sera utile pour déterminer si le pathologiste B a ou non satisfait à l’obligation de conservation et de documentation de la preuve, et s’il a fait preuve de négligence inacceptable[148]. En deuxième lieu, le requérant invoque ces expertises pour démontrer que la négligence inacceptable du pathologiste B viole son droit à une défense pleine et entière et que cette violation rendra son nouveau procès inéquitable.

(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.