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. Brahma v. HR Services, 2022 ONSC 2645

[44] The Plaintiff’s breach of the deemed undertaking rule does not, in my view, automatically attract an award of elevated costs. It turns on the particular facts of each case. The Plaintiff’s counsel was unaware that any information was provided to his counterparts in the Florida action. The evidence before me regarding the breach is limited to correspondence between counsel and the extent of the breach is unknown. Pursuant to r. 30.1.01(8) of the Rules, the court may find that the deemed undertaking does not apply because the court is satisfied that the interest of justice outweighs any prejudice that would result to a party who disclosed evidence, especially if it was disclosed in related proceedings, such as is the case here. On the evidence before me, I am unable to determine if the deemed undertaking would apply in these circumstances. Regardless, I am not persuaded that the Plaintiff engaged in conduct that was egregious, deserving of being rebuked by the court.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65

[1] This appeal and its companion cases (see Bell Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 66 (CanLII)), provide this Court with an opportunity to re-examine its approach to judicial review of administrative decisions.

[2] In these reasons, we will address two key aspects of the current administrative law jurisprudence which require reconsideration and clarification. First, we will chart a new course forward for determining the standard of review that applies when a court reviews the merits of an administrative decision. Second, we will provide additional guidance for reviewing courts to follow when conducting reasonableness review. The revised framework will continue to be guided by the principles underlying judicial review that this Court articulated in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 (CanLII), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190: that judicial review functions to maintain the rule of law while giving effect to legislative intent. We will also affirm the need to develop and strengthen a culture of justification in administrative decision making.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v. Dussault, 2022 SCC 16

[2] At issue in this appeal is whether the police provided Mr. Dussault with a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel and, more particularly, whether they were required to provide Mr. Dussault with a further opportunity to consult counsel before interrogating him. The trial judge held that they were not required to do so because, in all the circumstances, they could reasonably presume that Mr. Dussault had exercised his right to counsel during the 10-minute telephone call with his lawyer. The Court of Appeal reached the opposite conclusion, holding that Mr. Dussault’s telephone call did not constitute a “complete” consultation for the purposes of s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that the police were required to allow Mr. Dussault to continue this consultation at the station.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Ville de Québec c. Vidéotron ltée, 2022 QCCA 594

[21] On peut s’attendre à ce qu’un revirement jurisprudentiel comme celui provoqué par l’arrêt Vavilov ait un impact appréciable sur l’évolution d’affaires toujours pendantes. Il incombe alors à la Cour de tenir compte de ce facteur et, dans la mesure où cela demeure possible, d’en atténuer l’effet perturbateur sur les litiges en cours. La vigilance s’impose donc pendant la période transitoire au cours de laquelle les appels portent encore sur des dossiers instruits et plaidés à la lumière du droit antérieur. En effet, même là où il doit en être tenu compte, la nouvelle orientation jurisprudentielle ne compromettra pas nécessairement toutes les décisions qui l’ont précédée. Ainsi, la Cour peut se satisfaire que, malgré l’emploi de concepts désormais périmés, une décision datant d’avant le revirement en question demeure conforme à la nouvelle orientation, par exemple en raison du résultat concret que cette décision engendre[18].

(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.