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. Mou v. MHPM Project Leaders, 2016 HRTO 327
 I also find the applicant’s miscarriage is a disability. I acknowledge that a miscarriage may be covered under the ground of sex or as an intersection of sex and disability. It also is not a common ailment, and it is certainly not transitory. It is clear from the applicant’s testimony that she continues to experience significant emotional distress from the miscarriage even today.
2. J.S. v. M.M., 2016 ONSC 2179
35. The photographs and texts attached to the Applicant’s affidavit dated March 15, 2016 are struck from the record. They are to be removed from the court file immediately by court staff and returned to the Respondent’s solicitor. The Applicant shall not allow any other person (including the children) to view these materials. He shall not disseminate any graphics or images from the cell phone to any person other than legal counsel. This includes a prohibition against posting any of these materials on line. The Applicant shall deposit the cell phone with his lawyer pending further order.
3. Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 ONCA 241
 Canada, the TRC and the NCTR challenge the overall reasonableness of the Supervising Judge’s order to destroy the IAP Documents. They say that the IAP Documents are needed to preserve the historical record of residential schools. These parties point to references to federal legislation in the IRSSA and the Guide and to the statement in the IRSSA that all parties other than Canada had to destroy the IAP applications immediately upon completion of a claim. They say these references support their submission that the IAP Documents were meant to be archived by the government. Canada also argues the IAP Documents serve as proof of the resolution of claims and are needed to prevent double recovery by claimants.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Dunsmuir c. Nouveau-Brunswick,  1 RCS 190, 2008 CSC 9
1. Une fois de plus, la Cour est appelée à se pencher sur l’épineuse question de la démarche qu’il convient d’adopter pour le contrôle judiciaire des décisions des tribunaux administratifs. Au Canada, l’évolution récente du contrôle judiciaire a été marquée par une déférence variable, l’application de critères déroutants et la qualification nouvelle de vieux problèmes, sans qu’une solution n’offre de véritables repères aux parties, à leurs avocats, aux décideurs administratifs ou aux cours de justice saisies de demandes de contrôle judiciaire. Le temps est venu de réévaluer la question.
* As of January 2014 we measure the total amount of time spent on the pages rather than simply the number of hits; as well, a case once mentioned won’t appear again for three months.