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. Gauthier v Starr, 2016 ABQB 213
 Gauthier’s initial and Amended Statement of Claim arguably could be the product of a poorly informed lay litigant, though taking the step of modifying the Rules Form 10 template Statement of Claim to make this an action where Gauthier is “Prosecutor”, and the Defendants are “Wrongdoers”, is a rather implausible innocent civil litigation error. However, the “Notice” that Gauthier presented in the March 31, 2016 hearing makes very obvious that Gauthier has learned nothing from his previous court interactions and the advice that he should educate himself on Canadian law as it really is, rather than watching “Youtube videos of men scribbling on whiteboards.” (Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier, at para 103).
2. R. v. Duffy, 2016 ONCJ 220
 The Crown suggests that Senator Duffy went to great lengths in his attempts to portray himself as the victim of a concerted, persistent and determined effort to see his expense scandal—which had become a serious problem for the Conservative government—go away. The theory Senator Duffy advanced is that the Prime Minister’s Office, with the obedience of the Conservative leadership in the Senate, forced him into the mistake-and-repay scenario, notwithstanding the opposition and personal cost faced by Senator Duffy. They, says Senator Duffy simply would not take ‘no’ for an answer and exerted any and all pressure required to overcome his will.
3. R. v. Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13
 Parliament has the power to proscribe conduct as criminal and determine the punishment for it, and judges have the duty to apply the laws Parliament adopts on punishment to offenders. But individuals are also entitled to receive, and judges have a duty to impose, sentences that are constitutional having regard to the circumstances of each case that comes before them. Sometimes a judge’s duty to apply a mandatory minimum sentence provision conflicts with the judge’s duty to impose a sentence that does not violate the guarantees of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In this appeal, the Court is once again confronted with the problem of how the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence can be reconciled with the imperative that no person shall be punished in a manner than infringes the Charter.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Pyrioux inc. c. 9251-7796 Québec inc., 2016 QCCA 651
 Avec égards pour la juge de première instance, je suis d’avis qu’elle a conclu prématurément au rejet de cet acte de procédure. Elle aurait pu envisager de hâter le déroulement de l’instance pour atténuer le préjudice commercial qu’imposait, à ses yeux, la contrainte de la préinscription sur un des deux lots en laissant au juge du fond le soin d’apprécier le caractère abusif des actes de procédure et de la demande en justice. Ce dernier sera mieux placé pour vérifier si l’appelante a fait preuve de témérité en intentant sa demande en justice et, le cas échéant, imposer la sanction appropriée. Le préjudice commercial allégué, résultat de la demande en justice et de la préinscription, se traduit notamment par la difficulté, sinon l’impossibilité concrète, de vendre, dès à présent, le lot 860. Ce préjudice, si prouvé, pourra être évalué par le juge du fond, si tant est qu’une perte réelle en ait résulté. Il ne faut jamais perdre de vue qu’en soi, l’exercice d’un recours en justice est souvent source d’inconvénients. L’abus de la procédure se situe ailleurs.
* 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.