Jump to content
tommygun

Favourite/funniest cases?

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, canuckfanatic said:

Bolton v Stone - classic Lord Denning. Stone was hit by a cricket ball while walking on a road on the far end of a cricket pitch. She got hit by the ball and sued the cricket team.

Was this Denning? I thought that was Miller v Jackson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Starling said:

This is incredible. 

I think it's also a great case to put out there. Once you're armed with this knowledge you don't fall for those moronic YouTube videos or FB screeds claiming the law works in ways it manifestly doesn't. This case has helped me SO MUCH when dealing with specific clients and even some family members..

 

Quote

 

[77]           The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead’s argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual‑like in court conduct. All these features appear necessary for gurus to market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill‑informed, mentally disturbed, or legally abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or strategy. The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru’s customer.

[78]           Mediaeval alchemy is a helpful analogue. Alchemists sold their services based on the theatre of their activities, rather than demonstrated results, or any analytical or systematic methodology. OPCA gurus are modern legal alchemists. They promise gold, but their methods are principally intended to impress the gullible, or those who wish to use this drivel to abuse the court system. Any lack of legal success by the OPCA litigant is, of course, portrayed as a consequence of the customer’s failure to properly understand and apply the guru’s special knowledge.

[79]           Caselaw that relates to Gurus, reviewed below, explains how gurus present these ideas in seminars, books, websites, and instructional DVDs and other recordings. They provide pre‑prepared documents, which sometimes are government forms, and instruct how to fill in the necessary information that then produces the desired effects. Gurus write scripts to follow in court. Some will attempt to act as your representative, and argue your case.

[80]           When gurus do appear in court their schemes uniformly fail, which is why most leave court appearances to their customers. That explains why it is not unusual to find that an OPCA litigant cannot even explain their own materials. They did not write them. They do not (fully) understand them. OPCA litigants appear, engage in a court drama that is more akin to a magic spell ritual than an actual legal proceeding, and wait to see if the court is entranced and compliant. If not, the litigant returns home to scrutinize at what point the wrong incantation was uttered, an incorrectly prepared artifact waved or submitted.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LawBlaw2019 said:

Was this Denning? I thought that was Miller v Jackson

You're right, got it mixed up. I was thinking of this passage by Denning from Miller v Jackson:

Quote

In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last 70 years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hegdis said:

I think it's also a great case to put out there. Once you're armed with this knowledge you don't fall for those moronic YouTube videos or FB screeds claiming the law works in ways it manifestly doesn't. This case has helped me SO MUCH when dealing with specific clients and even some family members.

Mhm, like a lot of people I'm grateful that the judge took the opportunity of dealing with another sovcit to write a comprehensive treatise on such people and their tactics to give us all reference material to point to instead of having to try to explain and rebut this insanity ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can your guys not picking this one?! It's the funniest judgment I ever read! 

 The Hearing Clinic (Niagara Falls) Inc. v. 866073 Ontario Limited, et al., 2014 ONSC 5831 (CanLII)

In one of his latest judgments, The Hearing Clinic (Niagara Falls) Inc. v. 866073 Ontario Limited, et al., 2014 ONSC 5831, his acerbic wit shines as he records his fond memories and legal findings of a 72-day trial, spread over three years, that dealt with the allegedly fraudulent sale and purchase of a hearing aid business in Niagara Falls, Ontario.

Blessed with an orderly mind, Justice Quinn set out a Table of Contents with headings that include:

“Is There a Doctor in the House?

“Fridriksson plays Lieutenant Columbo with Inspector Clouseau results”

“All the Madness That’s In Your Head”

“….Nor Hell A Fury Like an Audiologist Scorned”

“Fridriksson The Fabricator”

“He entered the box as an articulate professional with impressive academic credentials, displaying what appeared to be a sound and comprehensive recollection of events. When he stepped down, after more than 14 days of withering cross-examination, he was noticeably dazed, his credibility was reduced to existential confetti and he even appeared to be physically shorter than when the trial began.”

“I do not know who enjoyed this cross-examination more, me or (defendant’s counsel). The only thing missing was popcorn.”

“His testimony deserves a special descriptor, coined for the occasion: “incredibull.”

Fridriksson has taken everyone on a hideously time-consuming and obscenely expensive journey down his private yellow brick road to the outskirts of the Emerald City where, it appears, he has a residence. It was not a worthwhile adventure,” the judge writes.

Fridriksson was awarded $423.00 in damages.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of judges that are known for writing in certain styles, Justice David Watt of the Ontario Court of Appeal has become known for writing his decisions in a novel-like way. It's been controversial (see here, here or here), but his decisions would be easier to follow and potentially more interesting to high school students. Some of his decisions that are often pointed to as examples of his writing style are R v Simon and R v Luciano.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this one: Henderson v Henderson, 2016 SKQB 282 (CanLII)

Divorcing couple fight over custody of a dog, property or children? 

 Justice Richard Danyliuk was firm in his ruling that dogs are property and should not be treated as if they were children.  "Dogs are wonderful creatures," he remarked. "Many dogs are treated as members of the family with whom they live. But after all is said and done, a dog is a dog. At law it is property, a domesticated animal that is owned. At law it enjoys no familial rights."

 

In coming to his decision, Justice Danyliuk considered a number of objective but dispassionate realities with respect to the differences between pets and children:

  • "In Canada, we tend not to purchase our children from breeders."
  • "We tend not to breed our children with other humans to ensure good bloodlines, nor do we charge for such services. "
  • "When our children are seriously ill, we generally do not engage in an economic cost/benefit analysis to see whether the children are to receive medical treatment, receive nothing or even have their lives ended to prevent suffering."
  • "When our children act improperly, even seriously and violently so, we generally do not muzzle them or even put them to death for repeated transgressions."

Finally, in an effort to persuade the parties to settle this issue out of court, Justice Danyliuk reminded the couple of the consequences of further litigating this issue in court.  "Both parties should bear in mind that if the court cannot reach a decision on where the dogs go, it is open to the court under the legislation to order them sold and the proceeds split – something I am sure neither party wants."

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this one too, from Judge Quinn, love the opening lines

Miller v. Carley, 2009 CanLII 39065 (ON SC)

[1] After a busy day conducting illegal drug transactions, the plaintiff, the defendant and a mutual friend stopped at a corner store where the defendant purchased some “scratch” lottery tickets. One of the tickets proved to be a $5-million winner.

[2] The parties dispute ownership of the winning ticket. If the ticket were a child and the parties vying for custody, I would find them both unfit and bring in Family and Children’s Services.

[3] The case is awash in untruths and curiosities. It is a study in good fortune squandered and generosity abused.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, utmguy said:

When it comes to shock value, it's hard to beat R v DLW.  

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2016/2016scc22/2016scc22.html

Ratio:  Sexual acts involving animals do not qualify as bestiality unless penetration is achieved.  

 

I'm trying to remember the case, but there is a family law case from the 60's where the judge muses whether it's possible for adultery to be committed by 2 women. It's also a great read. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R. v. MacLean, 2016 NSPC 59 is one of my favourites.

 

Quote

[130]   Unfortunately, Mr. MacLean went against the flow.  He was determined not to leave, as he felt he had done nothing wrong and was entitled to an explanation.  This is where Mr. MacLean got it wrong.  I say this because one of the basic rights inherent in the ownership of property is the right to exclude others from it.  This means that if you are in someone else’s home and find yourself being told to get going, you pack up and leave—at once.  There’s no demanding of an explanation; you are not entitled to one.  It is enough that the homeowner should want you out of there that you depart, post-haste.

 

[131]   As it was, Mr. MacLean put it up, and, when it was clear that he was going to be ejected without the explanation to which he believed unreasonably in his alcohol-impaired mind he was entitled, he lashed out—and latched on to the closest target, sinking his teeth into the tissue of Mr. Gaudet’s nose. 

 

[132]   The proposition that Mr. MacLean was trying to keep himself balanced and upright to prevent falling and getting pummeled has no air of reality to it.  Apart from acrobats such as the iron-jaw trapeze artist memorialized in the well known painting by Degas, nobody keeps his balance with his teeth.  People will use their arms, hands and legs, or will otherwise contort themselves when they need to maintain balance.  People do not bite into other people to maintain posture. 

 

[133]   And so it was under those circumstances that Mr. MacLean bit Mr. Gaudet’s nose.  He intended to do so.  He did not do it to defend himself or to protect himself.  He did it because he was angered at being kicked out without being given a reason.  He lashed out at the one directly in front of him, and that happened to be Mr. Gaudet.  When someone bites someone else, latching on with no intermediate clothing to protect soft tissue, bodily harm is bound to follow; injury is readily and objectively foreseeable.  This is particularly so when I observe that Mr. MacLean is an endomorphic body type; he is a big man, barrel chested and would weigh a fair bit more than the very slight Mr. Gaudet.  Mr. MacLean’s jaw lock on Mr. Gaudet’s nose meant that tissue was going to tear.

 

[134]   I do not believe Mr. MacLean’s explanation why he bit Mr. Gaudet; it is farfetched and fantastic, and I am not left in a state of reasonable doubt.  Mr. MacLean was resentful and angry, and acted, not in self-defence, but in retaliation, in a way he knew—or ought reasonably to have known—would injure Mr. Gaudet seriously. 

(Emphasis added).

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2021 at 12:29 PM, Psychometronic said:

R. v. Jackson, 2018 ONSC 2527

Not so much for the case itself, but for the judge's writing style. He's become somewhat famous for it now. 

I see why it’s famous but I also hate it. Too many short sentences is as bad as too many long ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always get a kick out of the fact that one of our really important constitutional law cases is called The Queen v Big M Drug Mart.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://canlii.ca/t/fwsm0
 

This is my favourite case. I’m sure I learned of it here  “Monkeys with typewriters” is one of the highlights on Canlii. 
 

I forgot that it’s the footnotes that make it after reading through and wondering why I thought it was so funny. 

Edited by easttowest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Urbanski v Patel (1978), Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench.

This is a good case in medical negligence and remoteness of damages. 

The patient was born with a congenital defect that left her with an odd kidney, and she only had one kidney. Unknown to the surgeon, he accidentally removes that kidney thinking it was an ovarian cyst. The father of the patient offers one of his kidneys to help the patient, but the transplant is unsuccessful. The patient sues for the loss of her kidney. The father also sues for damages for the loss of his own kidney too.  

The surgeon claimed that no one could have expected the patient to have this rare disorder. So, he shouldn't be held liable. The Court said surgeons have a higher duty of care to uphold compared to general physicians. So, the surgeon is liable.

The surgeon claimed remoteness of damages for the loss of the father's kidney. He claimed his only mistake was removing the kidney from the daughter. So, he shouldn't be held liable for the loss of kidney from the father as well. After all, he volunteered his kidney away. The Court said that a reasonable person in the father's situation would have donated the kidney, and he wouldn't have had to donate the kidney had the surgeon been more careful with the first surgery. So, the surgeon is liable here as well. 

The husband also sued even though he didn't suffer any injury to himself. He sued for loss of consortium, because his wife is now injured and that adversely affected the husband. The surgeon lost that suit as well.

Edited by robobrain
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

[1]           In this case the plaintiff seeks:

1.    A Declaration that, Sasquatch is a hominoid or primate (Giganto Horridus Hominoid and/or Gigantopithecus) type of species, also known as a bigfoot, and is an indigenous mammal living within British Columbia.

2.    A Declaration that the Defendant infringed the fundamental human rights of the Plaintiff as it relates to his concerns regarding Sasquatch.

3.    A Declaration that the Defendant committed a dereliction of duty, in regard to recognizing and protecting the Sasquatch species, a hominoid or primate, also known as bigfoot.

 

Standing v British Columbia (Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2018 BCSC 1499 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/htrm4>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/01/2021 at 3:53 PM, utmguy said:

When it comes to shock value, it's hard to beat R v DLW.  

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2016/2016scc22/2016scc22.html

Ratio:  Sexual acts involving animals do not qualify as bestiality unless penetration is achieved.  

 

Ugh. Completely apart from the bestiality, 16 years is a travesty for what that guy did to those kids.

Edited by Mountebank
Mobile typo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...