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. Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited, 2022 ONCA 310

[78] In my view, the appellant is entitled to receive his proved statutory benefits unless that entitlement is precluded by the wording of ss. 2(1)3 and 9(1)6. ESA entitlements are statutory and disentitlement cannot be achieved by agreement, unless to provide for a greater benefit to the employee: ESA, s. 5(1). In this case, the issue was raised, at least indirectly, at the trial. I acknowledge that the better approach would have been to raise the entitlement issue directly so that the trial judge could decide at first instance whether the impugned conduct fell within the statutory disentitlement sections. However, in the circumstances of this case, where non-compliance with the statute was raised in the opening statement and the relevant evidence is in the record, I would not prevent the appellant from asserting the claim on appeal.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Agha v. Munroe, 2022 ONSC 2508

[25] The new rule provides that leave “may be granted”. The old rule provided that leave “shall be granted”. The court, when confronted with a request for the late service of an expert’s report to enable a party to call that expert at trial must be satisfied that there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to serve the experts reports within the timelines specified by the Rule. In my view, the explanation for the failure in this case was not a reasonable explanation.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 SCC 68 (CanLII), [2014] 3 SCR 431

[67] There is similarly no role to play for the Charter in interpreting s. 98 of the IRPA. Where Parliament’s intent for a statutory provision is clear and there is no ambiguity, the Charter cannot be used as an interpretive tool to give the legislation a meaning which Parliament did not intend: Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559, at paras. 61-62. Moreover, as the Court of Appeal held, s. 98 of the IRPA is consistent with the Charter. As stated at para. 10 of these reasons, even if excluded from refugee protection, the appellant is able to apply for a stay of removal to a place if he would face death, torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if removed to that place (ss. 97, 112, 113(d)(i) and 114(1)(b) of the IRPA). On such an application, the Minister would be required to balance the risks faced by the appellant if removed against the danger the appellant would present to the Canadian public if not removed (s. 113(d) of the IRPA). Section 7 of the Charter may also prevent the Minister from issuing a removal order to a country where Charter-protected rights may be in jeopardy: Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3, at para. 58.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Option Consommateurs c. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK), 2022 QCCS 1338

[36] Le Tribunal note que toute la jurisprudence québécoise qui étudie la question de la suspension, que ce soit en vertu de l’une ou l’autre des deux voies, tient pour acquis que le dossier étranger en faveur duquel on demande la suspension de l’action collective au Québec inclut déjà les résidents québécois. Ainsi, généralement, le dossier hors Québec inclut déjà les résidents québécois comme membres du groupe proposé dans la province hors Québec. Dans ce cas, tout le monde et les tribunaux du Québec supposent que le tribunal étranger a compétence pour les résidents du Québec. Cet élément, incluant par la Cour d’appel, n’est jamais remis en question ou même abordé.

[37] Or, dans la présente situation, les trois défenderesses en Colombie-Britannique désirent ajouter les résidents du Québec au groupe déjà autorisé dans cette province. La question de la compétence des tribunaux de la Colombie-Britannique concernant les résidents québécois se pose car elle n’apparaît pas évidente à première vue. De plus, il n’est pas souhaitable de suspendre une action collective québécoise en faveur d’un tribunal étranger qui n’aurait pas compétence envers les résidents québécois, car le tout constituerait une perte de temps et une mauvaise administration de la justice.

(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.