HOT UPDATE (2:35 p.m. 2012-02-29): Seemingly out of nowhere has come the new and rapidly rising #1 most-consulted case for this week:
Langevin (Re) 2012 QCCS 613
 Sylvio Langevin réclame la propriété de la planète Terre. Dans un autre dossier entrepris le même jour, il réclame celle des planètes Mercure, Vénus, Jupiter, Saturne et Uranus, ainsi que des quatre grosses lunes de Jupiter.
 À l’audience, le requérant souhaite amender ce second recours pour y ajouter ses revendications sur Neptune et Pluton, ainsi que sur l’espace entre chaque planète, à la grandeur de la galaxie.
I think I should add that this is not a joke. It’s a real judgment.
I return you now to regularly scheduled programming:
Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the (8-day) week of February 21 – 29.
♨ 1. R. v. Augustine 2012 ONSC 1157
 The Appellant Augustine was convicted of failing to appear, contrary to s. 145 of the Criminal Code. He was required to appear at 3:00 p.m. at the Old City Hall Court House and a bench warrant issued at 3:45 p.m. when he failed to appear. He is a schizophrenic and he testified that he attended at the Finch Court House at 3:00 p.m., realized it was the wrong court, and then travelled downtown to Old City Hall, arriving at about 4:30 p.m. He gave his name at a second floor office and was told to leave.
♨ 2. Waldman v. Thomson Reuters Corporation 2012 ONSC 1138
 Lorne Waldman moves for certification of a proposed class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. C.6. Mr. Waldman’s action is against Thomson Reuters Canada Limited (“Thomson”) and Thomson Reuters Corporation. On consent, the parties ask that leave be granted to dismiss the action as against Thomson Reuters Corporation, a holding company and an indirect parent of Thomson. I grant leave and dismiss the action as against Thomson Reuters Corporation.
♨ 3. Richard v. Time Inc. 2012 SCC 8
 This appeal arises out of an advertising campaign that undoubtedly did not turn out as intended. The central issues in the case are whether the respondents, by mailing a document entitled “Official Sweepstakes Notification” (the “Document”) to the appellant, engaged in a practice prohibited by the Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q., c. P‑40.1 (“C.P.A.”), and, if so, whether the appellant is entitled to punitive and compensatory damages under s. 272 C.P.A. To decide these issues, the Court must, inter alia, define the characteristics that are relevant to the determination of whether a commercial representation is false or misleading, as well as the conditions for exercising the recourses in damages provided for in s. 272 C.P.A.
The most-consulted judgment in the French language was also Richard c. Time Inc. 2012 CSC 8