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. Groia v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2016 ONCA 471
 But it is a far different thing to argue, as Mr. Groia does, that a trial judge’s authority to supervise and control the progress of the trial and the conduct of its participants constrains the Law Society’s exercise of its statutory jurisdiction to regulate a lawyer’s in-court conduct in the public interest. This unprecedented argument, if accepted, would sanction the abrogation by the Law Society of its responsibilities to the public and the legal profession, as expressly vested in it by the legislature.
2. Polanski v Scharfe, 2016 ONSC 3861
 The Plaintiff in his submissions suggests that in allowing his articles to be prematurely terminated, LSUC has not carried out the “articling program” that it is mandated to administer, and that it has therefore failed to provide the “service” that it must provide. This, however, mischaracterizes LSUC’s role. LSUC is the regulator of the lawyer licensing procedure, not a service provider or program administrator. LSUC no more administers an “articling program” or provides a “service” for licensees than Canada Revenue Agency administers a “taxation program” or provides a “service” for taxpayers. That is simply not the function of the regulatory body.
3. R v Laboucane, 2016 ABCA 176
 Second, the type of sanctions which may be appropriate for the offender because of his or her particular Aboriginal heritage or connection “bears not on the degree of culpability of the offender, but on the effectiveness of the sentence itself.” Gladue principles direct sentencing judges to “abandon the presumption that all offenders and all communities share the same values when it comes to sentencing and to recognize that, given these fundamentally different world views, different or alternative sanctions may more effectively achieve the objectives of sentencing in a particular community”: Ipeelee at para 74.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Samoisette c. IBM Canada ltée, 2016 QCCS 2675
 Il est évident de la preuve que le demandeur a été incité à demeurer dans le régime à prestations déterminées du fait de la sécurité financière qu’il offrait et de la prestation de raccordement. Or, ce choix une fois exercé devient irrévocable pour l’employé.
 Le Tribunal ne peut accepter, dans les circonstances mises en preuve, que l’employeur puisse retirer la prestation de raccordement du régime de façon unilatérale. Les explications données en 1994 et, disons le clairement, l’assurance de recevoir la prestation de raccordement, viennent modifier le contrat de travail existant alors.
* 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.