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 the week of November 28 to December 4th:

1. Magder v. Ford 2012 ONSC 5615
   

   [1] This is an application brought by a municipal voter, Paul Magder, under s. 9 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50 [MCIA] against the respondent, Robert Ford, the current Mayor of Toronto. At a meeting of Toronto City Council on February 7, 2012, the respondent spoke to

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of November 20 – 27.

♨ 1. R. v. Tremblay 2012 BCPC 410

[1] Mr. Tremblay has entered guilty pleas to two charges: (i) wounding an animal, contrary to section 445(1)(a) of the Criminal Code; (ii) mischief in relation to property, the value of which did not exceed $5000, contrary to section 430(4) of the Criminal Code. It is my duty to impose a fit sentence for each offence.

♨ 2. Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays 2008 SCC 39

[1] On March 29, 2000, after 14 years of

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of November 14 – 21.

♨ 1. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola
2011 SCC 52

[2] In British Columbia, there is legislation giving the Human Rights Tribunal a discretion to refuse to hear a complaint if the substance of that complaint has already been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding. The issue in this appeal is how that discretion ought to be exercised when another tribunal with concurrent human rights jurisdiction has disposed of the complaint.

♨ 2. Setia v. Appleby College 2012 ONSC 5369

[1]

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for November 1 – 13.

♨ 1. Teva Canada Ltd. v. Pfizer Canada Inc. 2012 SCC 60

[1] This appeal involves a challenge to the validity of the patent of the Pfizer respondents (“Pfizer”) for Viagra, a drug currently on the market for treating erectile dysfunction (“ED”). The appellant, Teva Canada Limited (“Teva”), claims that Pfizer’s patent application did not meet the disclosure requirements set out in the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4 (the “Act”). Pfizer, on the other hand, submits that it complied fully with those requirements.

[2] The

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of October 16 – 22.

♨ 1. R. v. Cole 2012 SCC 53

[2] Computers that are reasonably used for personal purposes — whether found in the workplace or the home — contain information that is meaningful, intimate, and touching on the user’s biographical core. Vis-à-vis the state, everyone in Canada is constitutionally entitled to expect privacy in personal information of this kind.

♨ 2. Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571

[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of October 9 – 16.

♨ 1. Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571

[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of November 14 – 21.

♨ 1. Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571

[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of September 23 – 30.

♨ 1. Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571

[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of September 16 – 23.

♨ 1. R. v. Hill 2012 ONSC 5050

[4] Mr. Hill seeks an Order declaring that s. 753(1.1) [dangerous sexual offender] of the Criminal Code is invalid and of no force or effect pursuant tos. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Counsel for Mr. Hill submits that s. 753(1.1) infringes s. 7, s. 11(d) and s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

♨ 2. Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence . . . [more]

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of September 8 – 16.

♨ 1. R. v. Petrovic 2012 ONCJ 562

[1] Under Certificate of Offence no. 1260-7327319A. the defendant, Bozo Petrovic stands charged that he on the 19th day of August, 2011 at 2:15 p.m., at northbound Appleby Line at Dundas Street, in the City of Burlington, “did commit the offence of drive motor vehicle while operating a handheld communication device, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act, section 78.1(1)”.

♨ 2. St. Lewis v. Rancourt 2012 ONSC 5053

[1] This is a continuance of the

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of September 1 – 8.

♨ 1. Legal Aid Ontario v. Gertler 2012 ONSC 5000

[1] This is a motion brought by the defendants pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (the “Rules”). The defendants seek an order and directions with respect to the cross-examination of certain witnesses put forward by the plaintiff in response to a pending motion brought by the defendants for an order dismissing the plaintiff’s action (the “Pending Motion”). . . .

♨ 2. Moore v. Bertuzzi . . . [more]

Here are the four (bonus!) most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the month of August.

♨ 1. D’Amico v. Hitti 2012 ONSC 4467 [See also Matt Mauer’s recent post on Slaw about this case.]

[1] My recent experience sitting as a single judge of this Court to hear motions has convinced me that there is a growing practice by unscrupulous residential tenants to manipulate the law improperly, and often dishonestly, to enable them to remain in their rented premises for long periods of time without having to pay rent to their landlords. It is practice that imposes an unfair hardship