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 February 27 to March 5:
- Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott 2013 SCC 11
 The Saskatchewan legislature included a provision in its human rights legislation prohibiting hate publications. While emphasizing the importance of freedom of expression in a subsection of the provision, the intent of the statute is to suppress a certain type of expression which represents a potential cause of the discriminatory practices the human rights legislation seeks to eliminate. Our task is to determine whether the legislature’s approach is constitutional. . . .
- Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571
 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 . . .
- R. v. Sharpe 2001 SCC 2
1 Is Canada’s law banning the possession of child pornography constitutional or, conversely, does it unjustifiably intrude on the constitutional right of Canadians to free expression? That is the central question posed by this appeal. . . .
The most-consulted French-language decision was Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) c. Whatcott 2013 CSC 11
 Dans la loi sur les droits de la personne, le législateur de la Saskatchewan a prévu une disposition interdisant toute publication haineuse. Tout en soulignant, dans un des paragraphes de cette disposition, l’importance de la liberté d’expression, le législateur a exprimé sa volonté de supprimer un certain type d’écrits et de discours susceptibles d’être à l’origine des actes discriminatoires que la loi sur les droits de la personne cherche à éliminer. Notre tâche consiste à déterminer la constitutionnalité de la démarche du législateur. . . .