Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII? – July 2025

Each month, we tell you which three English-language cases and French-language cases have been the most viewed* on CanLII in the previous month and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this past month, the three most-consulted English-language decisions were:

1. R. v. McLeod, et al., 2025 ONSC 4319

[1] On June 18, 2018, members of the 2018 Championship Canadian World Junior Hockey Team (“the team”) were gathered in London, Ontario to celebrate their victory in the World Junior Hockey Tournament earlier that year. What occurred during the early morning hours of June 19, 2018, between the accused and the complainant, E.M., forms the subject matter of the charges of sexual assault before the court.

[…]

[5] E.M. alleges that after the consensual sexual activity concluded she was sexually assaulted by each of the accused. The complainant testified that she did not consent to the sexual activity that took place and she felt that she did not have a choice about whether to engage in the group sexual activity due to intoxication or fear or a combination of both. The defence maintains that E.M. was an active and willing participant in the sexual activity that occurred with each of the accused in room 209, and in fact initiated much of it.

[6] The events that took place in room 209 at the Delta Hotel in the early morning hours of June 19, 2018, were the subject matter of a London Police investigation and an investigation by Hockey Canada, the governing body of the World Junior Hockey Team. Initially those investigations resulted in no criminal charges being laid. Those events were also the subject matter of a civil claim filed by the complainant in the Superior Court of Justice in April 2022 that was settled by Hockey Canada in May 2022, for an undisclosed sum of money without the knowledge or the involvement of the accused in this case.

[7] Once the settlement of the civil claim filed by E.M. was made public, and garnered national attention, the London Police Service re-opened their investigation, and there was a renewed investigation by Hockey Canada. There was also a meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage ordered by the House of Commons to study Hockey Canada’s involvement in alleged sexual assaults which included these specific events. Ultimately, the criminal charges that are contained on this indictment were laid.

[8] The lengthy and contorted history of this case, including the multiple investigations by different agencies, including the civil action and settlement, has led to multiple, often conflicting statements from the complainant, the defendants, and witnesses. With five accused and that barrage of evidence, I can say that counsel conducted the trial efficiently, and that the time spent, particularly in the cross-examination of E.M., was entirely appropriate.

[9] Much has been made in this case about the concept of consent. This case on its facts does not raise issues of the reformulation of the legal concept of consent. In this case, I have found actual consent not vitiated by fear. I do not find the evidence of E.M. to be either credible or reliable. In my lengthy reasons set out below, I will explain why I reach those conclusions.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. A.C. v. D.W., 2025 NLSC 99

[219] In this case, the Mother has significant work to do to gain insight into the harm her behaviour is causing the Child. I have no doubt that the Mother loves the Child very much and that she wants to be a significant part of the Child’s life. I accept that the Father acknowledges and supports this. However, the Mother’s attitude towards the Father and her concern of his involvement in the Child’s life have caused her own parenting to stray from a positive relationship to one that continues to be at significant risk of harming her Child. I am hopeful she can obtain the assistance she requires through the intervention of CSSD or with private counsellors or therapists to adjust her attitude towards the Father’s role in the Child’s life.

[220] I believe it is in the best interests of the Child that supervised parenting time with the Mother continue. I am ordering a more limited parenting schedule to reduce the Child’s exposure to harm and conflict on frequent parenting exchanges. The schedule is now impacted by the Child’s primary residence being in Gambo, and the fact that her school will change to Smallwood Academy, Gambo. Complicating this is the Mother’s present concern for travelling to or being in the town of Gambo. I am ordering that the Mother will have supervised parenting time of 6 hours on one day of every weekend and 3 hours on one other day, as agreed to by the parties. This can be afterschool during the school year. The Mother shall be granted additional time every year on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, Mother’s Day, her birthday and a date within four days of the Child’s birthday for supervised access. These additional parenting times shall be decided in advance and in writing with the mutual agreement of the parties.

[…]

[222] For the same reasons that I consider primary parenting with the Father as being in the Child’s best interests, I am ordering that the Father shall have sole decision-making responsibility for the Child. Given the level of conflict between the parties and the history of family violence, I find this is a case where joint decision-making would be unrealistic and not in the best interest of the Child.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Sukhadia v Saskatchewan (Ministry of the Economy), 2025 SKKB 100

[132] A misrepresentation is material if it could reasonably have affected the outcome. The concept extends beyond the merits of the application. The codified definition of material misrepresentation in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], admissibility provisions is instructive. Subsection 40(1)(a) of the IRPA provides that a foreign national may be inadmissible for “directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act [emphasis added]”.

[133] A material misrepresentation encompasses more than the applicant’s credentials or defects. It may relate to the decision-maker’s ability to carry out duties in accordance with an authorising statute or applicable policies. The Federal Court has frequently held that “a misrepresentation will be material if it is important enough to affect the process, even if it is not decisive or determinative of an application”: Salu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 69 at para 3.

[134] The misrepresentation here did not involve the applicant’s credentials. It involved the undeclared use of an unauthorised representative. While this does not go directly to the applicant’s suitability, it relates to the decision-maker’s ability to administer his or her duties in accordance with government policy.

[135] The SINP must be able to identify qualified candidates and be able to rely on its own processes. The SINP authorises certain agencies or classes of person to act as representatives. This feature is not unique to the SINP but is common to immigration programs: see similar language in s. 91 of the IRPA.

[136] Program integrity is undermined when unknown representatives are involved. While the use of unauthorised representatives may facilitate sophisticated fraud, the problem with them is more basic than that.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

***

The three most-consulted French-language decisions were:

1. Pharmaciens (Ordre professionnel des) c. Khaouam, 2025 QCCDPHA 14

[1] Le 1er novembre 2024, la plaignante, Mme Josée Morin, syndique adjointe de l’Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec (l’Ordre), dépose une plainte contre l’intimé, M. Said Khaouam, inscrit au tableau de l’Ordre depuis 2006[1].

[2] La plainte reproche à l’intimé de ne pas avoir assuré le suivi de la thérapie médicamenteuse du patient, M. B. en lien avec l’ordonnance […]-748 prescrivant apixaban 5 mg deux fois par jour (BID), […]-778 prescrivant Mint-Atenol® 25 mg, une fois par jour (DIE) et […]-739 prescrivant sulfate ferreux 300 mg DIE, contrevenant au Code de déontologie des pharmaciens.

[3] La plainte disciplinaire est ainsi rédigée:

1. Entre le ou vers le 3 octobre 2023 et le ou vers le 12 janvier 2024, alors qu’il exerçait sa profession à sa pharmacie située au 1650, boulevard Henri-Bourassa Ouest à Montréal, district de Montréal , a fait défaut d’assurer le suivi de la thérapie médicamenteuse du patient [M. B.] en lien avec les ordonnances […]-748 prescrivant Apixaban 5 mg BID, […]-778 prescrivant Mint-Atenol 25 mg DIE et […]-739 prescrivant Sulfate ferreux 300 mg DIE, contrevenant ainsi à l’article 36 du Code de déontologie des pharmaciens (RLRQ, c. P-10, r. 7).

[Transcription textuelle]

[4] À l’audience, l’intimé informe le Conseil qu’il présente un plaidoyer de culpabilité à l’égard de l’unique chef de la plainte.

[5] Après s’être assuré de sa compétence pour entendre la plainte, le Conseil constate que l’intimé plaide coupable de manière libre et éclairée et qu’il comprend que le Conseil n’est pas lié par la recommandation conjointe sur sanction. Il le déclare coupable, séance tenante.

[6] Les parties informent alors le Conseil qu’elles comptent présenter une recommandation conjointe sur sanction, proposant qu’une amende de 5 000 $ soit imposée à l’intimé et qu’il soit condamné au paiement de la moitié des déboursés. L’autre moitié sera acquittée par l’intimée Saour dans le dossier de plainte 30-24-02218.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Falardeau c. Boivin, 2025 QCCS 2117

[1] Mme Isabelle Falardeau demande qu’une injonction permanente soit prononcée afin de faire cesser les propos tenus à son égard, en 2020 et 2021, par Mme Catherine Boivin, et que cette dernière retire ces propos ayant été publiés sur divers réseaux sociaux. Mme Falardeau lui réclame également des dommages-intérêts s’élevant à 90 000 $, relativement aux commentaires en cause qu’elle considère diffamatoires.

[2] Mme Boivin conteste avoir commis quelque faute que ce soit et soutient que les propos qu’elle a publiés au sujet de Mme Falardeau avaient pour but de dénoncer l’appropriation culturelle à laquelle cette dernière se serait adonnée (à l’endroit de la culture et des savoirs autochtones) ainsi que le phénomène des « métis autoproclamés ». Selon Mme Boivin, les propos qu’elle a tenus constituent l’expression sincère de ses opinions et elle devrait être libre de continuer de militer afin de promouvoir celles-ci.

[…]

[85] On ne retrouve pas chez Mme Boivin une véritable intention de nuire mais plutôt l’affirmation ferme et sentie d’un point de vue mûrement réfléchi.

[86] Le Tribunal a déjà indiqué aux parties (lors du procès) que son rôle n’était pas de prendre part à leur débat en adhérant à une thèse plutôt qu’à une autre mais d’analyser le litige en fonction de la liberté d’expression et du droit à la réputation.

[87] La conduite de Mme Boivin ne peut clairement pas être qualifiée de malveillante ou de négligente. Les personnes qui, en raison de leur militantisme, sont suivies par plusieurs et peuvent être considérées des « leaders d’opinion », doivent en être conscientes afin que leurs messages soient d’autant plus réfléchis et exempts de propos haineux, compte tenu de leur impact potentiel. Cette ligne n’a toutefois pas été franchie par Mme Boivin en l’espèce.

[88] De plus, il convient de faire état du contexte légal relatif à l’identification des peuples métis et aux droits des peuples autochtones de contrôler et de protéger leurs connaissances traditionnelles.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Ville de Québec c. Ouellet, 2025 QCCA 825

[1] L’appelante, la Ville de Québec (« Ville »), se pourvoit contre un jugement rendu le 29 février 2024 par la Cour supérieure, district de Québec (l’honorable Nancy Bonsaint), qui accueille le pourvoi en contrôle judiciaire de Johanie Ouellet, casse la décision rendue par le Tribunal administratif du travail (« TAT ») le 16 décembre 2022[1] et retourne le dossier au TAT pour qu’il statue sur la plainte de Mme Ouellet, avec les frais de justice[2].

[2] Le TAT a rejeté la contestation de Mme Ouellet d’une décision de la Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (« CNESST »)[3] et a conclu que la plainte déposée par celle‑ci en vertu de l’article 227 de la Loi sur la santé et la sécurité du travail (« LSST »)[4] était irrecevable, le régime de retrait préventif de la travailleuse enceinte se limitant au droit de cette dernière d’être retirée préventivement du travail. Dans ce contexte, le refus de la Ville de considérer sa demande de réaffectation ou d’y faire droit n’était pas une sanction, une mesure discriminatoire ou de représailles, mais plutôt un effet de la loi. Le TAT a alors déclaré la plainte irrecevable puisque les critères d’ouverture de l’article 227 LSST n’étaient pas satisfaits.

[3] Le pourvoi porte donc sur l’interprétation des articles 40 et 41 de la LSST, relatifs au régime de retrait préventif de la travailleuse enceinte, dans le cadre de la recevabilité d’une plainte déposée par Mme Ouellet en vertu de l’article 227 LSST.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

* As of February 2025 we measure the number of unique pageviews that a case gets; as well, a case once mentioned won’t appear again for three months.