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. Daniel v. Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, LLP, 2017 ONCA 697

[1] The appellant’s core submission is that in finding that she was a partner in the respondent law firm, rather than an employee, the trial judge gave insufficient consideration to the fact that her work was controlled by the partner whose clients she served and that she was dependent on the . . . [more]

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. Vaillancourt v Carter, 2017 ABCA 282

[26] It is apparent on the evidence before me that Mr. Carter has gone to elaborate lengths to shield his investments and arrange his affairs to appear as though he does not have the financial means to satisfy the judgment against him or to comply with a security for judgment order. A holding company, aptly . . . [more]

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. 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2017 ABQB 530

[121] I reject that ‘litigating from one’s heart’ is any defence to a potential costs award vs a lawyer, or for that matter from any other sanction potentially faced by a lawyer. Lawyers are not actors, orators, or musicians, whose task is to convey and elicit emotions. They are highly trained . . . [more]

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. Nyznik, 2017 ONSC 4392

[195] The Crown has failed to discharge its onus of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual acts she described. That does not mean that I necessarily believe the testimony of Mr. Nyznik that she freely and specifically consented to each and every act that occurred. It also . . . [more]

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. Moore v. Sweet, 2017 ONCA 182

[104] Most of the authorities in which courts have been willing to override a beneficiary designation can be explained on the basis of an agreement between one of the claimants and the insured that removed the insured’s ability to designate a later beneficiary.[6] As noted earlier, Shannon involved a separation agreement in which the insured . . . [more]

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. Engel v Edmonton Police Association, 2017 ABQB 495

[87] I agree that given Mr. Engel’s profession, the statements in the Article are particularly injurious. The Article explicitly refers to incompetence, frivolous and vexatious conduct which implicitly suggests dishonest motives and overall suggests professional impropriety. Combined, when considering the lengthy and public career of the plaintiff, are all damaging to his reputation . . . [more]

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. Khan, 2017 ONCA 114

[44] The trial judge properly placed the prior consistent statement on the scale in assessing the credibility of the complainant’s in-court testimony by considering the circumstances in which she made her initial complaint to Constable Flint. To this extent, the prior consistent statement does add to the credibility of the complainant’s in-court testimony and had . . . [more]

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. Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v. Enbridge Pipelines Inc., 2017 SCC 41

[1] In this appeal and in its companion, Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo-Services Inc., 2017 SCC 40, this Court must consider the Crown’s duty to consult with Indigenous peoples prior to an independent regulatory agency’s approval of a project that could impact their rights. As we . . . [more]

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. Saugeen First Nation v Ontario (MNRF), 2017 ONSC 3456

[144] During my detailed review of the dealings among the parties I made numerous findings that various acts or omissions by MNRF were “breaches” of the Crown’s duty to consult. As noted above, Treaties are not to be construed like commercial agreements. Similarly, the conduct of the parties during consultations is not . . . [more]

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. Flirty Girl Fitness Inc. v Hottie Body Boutique Inc., 2017 ONSC 4158

[83] There was, in any event, no breach of fiduciary duty by either sister in negotiating the agreement with Hottie Body Boutique, which was fully disclosed to the shareholders of Flirty Girl Fitness and beneficial to the corporation. The breaches of fiduciary duty were to the fellow shareholders who . . . [more]

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 Barton, 2017 ABCA 216

[1] The jury system is probably the most familiar symbol and manifestation of the Rule of Law in this country. It is enshrined in our traditions, values and the words of our foundational law, the Constitution of Canada. The verdict of a jury is the product of the reason and collective human experience of people . . . [more]

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 . . . [more]