Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

• Author: Administrator
• Date: March 06, 2019

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. Plange, 2018 ONSC 1657

[38] In my view, to sentence this offender, one without any prior criminal antecedents, to a penitentiary term would shock the conscience of the community. Not all lies are cast from the same mold and of the same gravity. Further such falsehoods may catch a more than insubstantial number of otherwise law abiding people. It would put a chill in the hearts of people who may have fudged financial numbers a bit in order to qualify for a loan or a line of credit. While there may be nothing wrong in criminalizing such conduct, to send someone to jail for two years is so excessive it would outrage the standards of decency

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Mawhinney v Scobie, 2019 ABCA 76

[59] While the case management judge was not satisfied that suspicious circumstances had been established by the applicant, he was prepared to permit her to adduce such evidence without triggering the no contest clause on the basis of an exception expressly in the no contest clause. (The no contest clause is reproduced below in paragraph 61.)

[60] In short, having been alerted to the possibility that the testamentary instrument might have been executed in suspicious circumstances, the court considered itself obligated to look into the matter. As a consequence, the case management judge ordered a hearing to determine, not whether the will was valid, but whether there were sufficient suspicious circumstances to trigger the need for the validity of the will to be proven in solemn form

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Salomon v. Matte‑Thompson, 2019 SCC 14

[203] The trial judge had to draw a line somewhere. And she came to the conclusion that the fraud was the only true cause — and therefore that Mr. Salomon’s recommendation of Triglobal and Mr. Papadopoulos was not a logical, direct and immediate cause — of the losses. By the time the respondents invested in Focus, they had formed their own opinion on their financial advisors’ competence and probity which was not dependent on Mr. Salomon’s initial recommendation or his subsequent reassurances. Contrary to the suggestion made by the Court of Appeal and by my colleague, this is not tantamount to saying that the fraud itself constituted a novus actus interveniens. Rather,...