Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

DateAugust 31, 2016

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. Goska J. Nowak Professional Corporation v Robinson, 2016 ABCA 240

[21] This argument mischaracterizes the Agreement. The parties agreed that Dr. Robinson would provide his personal services to a corporate entity, his former professional corporation, RRPC 1. That corporation retained the assets of the practice. Dr. Robinson was to perform his services using office facilities and staff provided by RRPC 1 and he was to be paid by RRPC 1. Obviously, the characteristics of RRPC 1 objectively mattered to Dr. Robinson and it made a difference to him to whom he was to discharge his obligations. For example, it would make a difference to him if his services were assigned to another dentist or to a shell company. Therefore, the Agreement was a personal services contract requiring Dr. Robinson’s consent to an assignment.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Alguire v The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, 2016 ONSC 5295

[16] To begin, the concept of any paid up value being greater than the face amount of a life insurance policy is quite far-fetched, and arguably nonsensical. By definition, the paid up value of a life insurance policy is the value an owner receives from the insurer upon default or surrender or early termination of the policy before its maturity or the insured’s death. When an insured defaults on his/her obligation to remit payment of a premium, and the policy lapses as a result, the policy may acquire a paid up value such that the face amount of coverage under the policy is reduced in proportion with the number and amount of premiums paid until the date of default. In other words, the paid up value is always a percentage of the face amount of coverage.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v. Randle, 2016 BCCA 125

[83] When considering the circumstances in which the confession was elicited in this case, the trial judge placed particular emphasis upon the conduct of the interrogation and the personality of the accused in finding that it was not particularly coercive. The appellant had for some years been involved in criminal activity and was not particularly naïve. He was unemployed but here, as in Johnston, the appellant was not destitute. The appellant did not apparently suffer from a mental illness or disability and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT