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. Yussuf 2014 ONCJ 143
   

   [1] This is my decision in the trial of Mr. Mohamed Ali Yussuf, who was tried before me on 17 March 2014 on a charge of wilfully obstructing a peace officer in the course of his duties. That charge arises from an incident alleged to have happened on 3 September 2012. The trial proceeded in an unusual fashion.

   A. The Identification of the Accused for Arraignment

   [2] Anyone charged with an offence has an obligation upon appearing to make their presence known to the presiding judge: R. v. Anderson (1983), 49 A.R. 122 (C.A.). Mr. Yussuf did not answer to the charge as the accused, and although this is not the charge before me, he clearly impeded the course of justice. He entered the court in response to a page for Mr. Yussuf, and identified himself as representing Mr. Yussuf. He introduced himself only as “Mohamed” and refused to provide a legal name. Unaware at the time that “Mohamed” was Mr. Yussuf I advised “Mohamed” that I could not recognize him as Mr. Yussuf’s representative in this summary conviction prosecution unless he furnished me with this legal name. He refused, demanding that I confirm that I am a duly sworn judge who will respect his natural rights. During the course of our exchange he told me that he was not Mr. Yussuf and was not the accused before the Court but insisted on representing Mr. Yussuf.

2. Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1999] 2 SCR 817
   

   Regulations made pursuant to s. 114(2) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, empower the respondent Minister to facilitate the admission to Canada of a person where the Minister is satisfied, owing to humanitarian and compassionate considerations, that admission should be facilitated or an exemption from the regulations made under the Act should be granted. At the centre of this appeal is the approach to be taken by a court to judicial review of such decisions, both on procedural and substantive grounds. It also raises issues of reasonable apprehension of bias, the provision of written reasons as part of the duty of fairness, and the role of children’s interests in reviewing decisions made pursuant to s. 114(2).

3. Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc. 2014 ONSC 1677
   

   [1] This is an appeal from the decision of Horkins J., dated December 14, 2012, denying a motion to certify a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992 c. 6 (“CPA”).

   [2] The Respondent manages Ontario’s electronic land registry system. When plans of survey are registered and deposited in the provincial land registry offices in Ontario, the Respondent makes electronic copies of the plans and sells them for a fee.

   [3] The Appellant brings this action on its own behalf and on behalf of all land surveyors in Ontario who registered or deposited their plans of survey in provincial land registry offices. The proposed class action alleges that the Respondent’s creation, maintenance and operation of its database constitutes copyright infringement in the plans of survey under the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42 (“Copyright Act”).

The most-consulted French-language decision was Ordre des dentistes du Québec c Raby 2014 CanLII 8796 (QC ODQ)

[2] Une plainte disciplinaire est logée contre l’intimé et libellée comme suit :
1. Depuis le 6 décembre 2013 jusqu’à ce jour, l’intimé, à Drummondville, a cessé ses activités professionnelles à titre de dentiste et a omis de prendre les mesures nécessaires afin de sauvegarder les intérêts de ses patients, commettant par là une infraction aux dispositions de l’article 31 in fine du Règlement sur la tenue des cabinets et des dossiers et la cessation d’exercice des membres de l’Ordre des dentistes du Québec, chapitre D-3, r.16;

[3] Invoquant la gravité de la plainte, l’importance d’assurer la protection du public, les antécédents disciplinaires de l’intimé et d’autres faits exposés dans son affidavit, le syndic plaignant demande au Conseil la radiation provisoire immédiate de l’intimé en vertu de l’article 130 (3) du Code des professions.

* 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.