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. Cornwall (City) v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 5734, 2022 CanLII 29360 (ON LA)

[41] ACRs are records of the call from the perspective of the paramedic, wherein she or he documents her or his actions and observations. The ACR becomes part of the patient record, and is shared with any receiving facility to whom care of the patient is transferred. They may also be considered in the context of any police investigations or litigation. It is a requirement of the Ontario Ambulance Documentation Standards that all paramedic documentation, which includes the ACR, be accurate and of a quality suitable for an investigation or legal proceeding. All of this is acknowledged by the Grievor. Completing ACRs is a regular and routine part of a paramedic’s job. It is done electronically, through the use of a software program, after the ambulance call has been completed and patient care has been transferred. As part of quality assurance, the Employer periodically and randomly audits ACRs. Cdr. Woods testified that depending on the issues identified in the audits different courses of action may be followed. In certain circumstances the Employer may decide to engage in an investigation. The Grievor had eighteen ACRs audited prior to the incident at issue. A variety of issues were noted in these audits, some more than once. In none of those cases was any investigation undertaken or any discipline issued. Rather, the process that the Employer chose to follow in each of those cases was one of education and training. The audit was simply brought to the Grievor’s attention; he was provided an opportunity to review the comments and provide a written response.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Regent v Registrar of Titles, 2022 SKQB 102

[31] Put in the context of Justice Cameron’s statement, Mr. Regent’s advocacy goes beyond what “the circumstances of the case” or “the Act allows.” He pushes an application under s. 107 far beyond its legislative intent when he asks the court to provide an order, not of curative or remedial effect, but to introduce fundamental changes to the operation of the land titles registry. If, as Justice Cameron directs, orders under a s. 107 application are only to be provided as “the Act allows,” Mr. Regent’s position largely ignores and contradicts the legislative powers accorded to the Registrar under the LTA, including s. 6(3), a provision that specifically states that the Registrar is responsible for “supervising, under the direction of the minister, the operation of the land titles registry,” and “maintaining all documents in the land titles registry.”

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Gronvold v Rural Municipality of Baildon No. 131 The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, 2022 SKQB 99

[54] To begin with, a complainant in these proceedings must establish a prima facie case for the alleged discrimination. To be precise, the complainant must tender evidence of the allegations that, if believed, is “complete and sufficient to justify a verdict in the complainant’s favour in the absence of an answer from the respondent-employer”: Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Simpsons-Sears Ltd., 1985 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1985] 2 SCR 536 at para 28 (WL). The words “complete and sufficient” require the complainant to make out the prima facie case on a balance of probabilities: Québec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Centre), 2015 SCC 39 at para 65, [2015] 2 SCR 789 [Bombardier].

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration) c. Vavilov, 2019 CSC 65

[1] Le présent pourvoi et les pourvois connexes (voir Bell Canada c. Canada (Procureur général), 2019 CSC 66), donnent à la Cour l’occasion de se pencher de nouveau sur sa façon d’aborder le contrôle judiciaire des décisions administratives.

[2] Dans les présents motifs, nous traitons de deux aspects clés de la jurisprudence actuelle en droit administratif qu’il est nécessaire de réexaminer et de clarifier. D’abord, nous traçons la nouvelle voie à suivre pour déterminer la norme de contrôle applicable lorsqu’une cour de justice contrôle une décision administrative au fond. Ensuite, nous donnons des indications additionnelles aux cours de révision qui procèdent au contrôle selon la norme de la décision raisonnable. Le cadre d’analyse révisé est encore guidé par les principes en matière de contrôle judiciaire qu’a énoncés la Cour dans l’arrêt Dunsmuir c. Nouveau‑Brunswick, 2008 CSC 9, [2008] 1 R.C.S. 190 : le contrôle judiciaire a pour fonction de préserver la primauté du droit tout en donnant effet à la volonté du législateur. Nous insistons également sur la nécessité de développer et de renforcer une culture de la justification au sein du processus décisionnel administratif.

(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.