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. Bradshaw, 2017 SCC 35

[1] Hearsay is an out-of-court statement tendered for the truth of its contents. It is presumptively inadmissible because — in the absence of the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant at the time the statement is made — it is often difficult for the trier of fact to assess its truth. Thus hearsay can threaten the integrity of the trial’s truth-seeking process and trial fairness. However, hearsay may exceptionally be admitted into evidence under the principled exception when it meets the criteria of necessity and threshold reliability.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 SCC 34

[1] The issue in this appeal is whether Google can be ordered, pending a trial, to globally de-index the websites of a company which, in breach of several court orders, is using those websites to unlawfully sell the intellectual property of another company. The answer turns on classic interlocutory injunction jurisprudence: is there a serious issue to be tried; would irreparable harm result if the injunction were not granted; and does the balance of convenience favour granting or refusing the injunction. Ultimately, the question is whether granting the injunction would be just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Bunn v Peace River (Town), 2017 ABQB 398

[37] The Mayor appears to be advocating that, at least, the termination clause’s onerous provisions would be a means of discouraging a future council from exercising its right to terminate Mr. Bunn because of the large cost to the municipality. Again, there is no indication in the materials before me of any cross examination either of the deponent who affixed this email to his affidavit, the former mayor or of the former CAO.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Pop c. Boulanger, 2017 QCCA 1009

[41] Dans le présent cas, je suis toutefois d’avis que le jugement entrepris cause préjudice, puisque l’appelant sera empêché de faire une preuve qu’il considère importante, ce que confirme la juge Roy. Le fait que le juge du procès peut décider d’en permettre la production, et ce, malgré que la juge Corriveau ait ordonné leur retrait, ne suffit pas à me convaincre que le préjudice a été neutralisé. Un expert ne peut pas être entendu sans qu’un rapport soit préalablement déposé au dossier (article 293 C.p.c.). De plus, l’appelant sera entravé dans la préparation de son procès, car il sera maintenu dans l’incertitude quant à la preuve qu’il peut administrer et, conséquemment, quant aux témoins experts à convoquer et dont les services devront être réservés à l’avance. En somme, le jugement dont appel cause un préjudice à l’appelant.

(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.