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. R. v. Cody, 2017 SCC 31

[1] In R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631, this Court identified a culture of complacency towards delay in the criminal justice system. This culture was fostered by doctrinal and practical difficulties plaguing the analytical framework then applicable to the right of accused persons, guaranteed under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to be tried within a reasonable time. This appeal is yet another example of why change is necessary. From the time the appellant James Cody was charged with drugs and weapons offences until his five-day trial was scheduled to begin (prior to the release of this Court’s decision in Jordan), fully five years passed. As we will explain, the Crown, the defence and the system each contributed to that delay. This leads us to stress, as the Court did in Jordan, that every actor in the justice system has a responsibility to ensure that criminal proceedings are carried out in a manner that is consistent with an accused person’s right to a trial within a reasonable time.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v. Tim, 2022 SCC 12

[1] At issue on this appeal is whether the arrest of an individual based on a mistake of law and subsequent searches infringed the individual’s rights against arbitrary detention (s. 9) and unreasonable search and seizure (s. 8) guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and if so, whether the evidence obtained should be excluded under s. 24(2).

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Miele v. Bevilacqua, 2022 ONSC 2065

[12] Rule 1.03 (1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194 defines “substantial indemnity costs” as 1.5 times the regular award. The rule of thumb for a regular or partial indemnity award is 60% of fees (plus disbursements and applicable taxes). I find that in this case the substantial indemnity award is therefore to be calculated at 90% of reasonable fees plus disbursements and taxes. As noted above, Mr. Miele does not challenge the reasonableness of the fees set out in the invoices delivered by the defendants’ counsel. I find that they are all based on market rates and that the time claimed in each is reasonable.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Lemire, 2022 QCTAT 1631

[24] Environ deux jours, avant la date prévue de l’audience, on demande au juge soussigné s’il accepte de prendre le dossier à l’étude. Il s’agit certes d’une situation particulière : un juge du Tribunal devant entendre un autre juge du même tribunal à titre de réclamant. Immédiatement, s’est posé dans l’esprit du Tribunal, la question du forum non conveniens. Le Tribunal peut-il entendre une affaire où le réclamant est lui-même un juge de ce même tribunal alors que la cause remonte à une époque antérieure à la nomination de ce juge réclamant. Avant cette audience, le Tribunal conclut qu’à cause de la compétence exclusive qu’il possède à l’égard des contestations en matière de lésion professionnelle, il doit entendre le dossier. Cependant, la question demeure délicate. Les règles et les droits de monsieur Lemire doivent être appliqués de la même façon qu’ils le seraient pour tout justiciable.

(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.