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. R v CMG, 2016 ABQB 368
 I reject the argument that the accused is afforded any protection in the case at bar under s. 13 of the Charter or s. 5(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, RSC 1985, c C-5 [CEA]. Sections 13 of the Charter and 5(2) of the CEA are treated as offering the same protection and both provide that prior compelled evidence is inadmissible against an accused, including to challenge credibility, unless the prosecution is for perjury or if the accused is giving contradictory evidence. Section 13 of the Charter states:
A witness who testifies in any proceeding has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given, used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
2. Wall v Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, 2016 ABCA 255
 Accordingly, a court has jurisdiction to review the decision of a religious organization when a breach of the rules of natural justice is alleged. The respondent’s application raises numerous complaints regarding the process used by the appellants. He contends that he was not provided with particulars of the allegations again him or the process that he would face. He was not advised whether he could retain legal counsel or whether there would be a record of the proceedings. He also contends that he is entitled to written reasons of the decisions of the Judicial Committee and the Appeal Committee. On the basis of these allegations the Court of Queen’s Bench has jurisdiction to hear the application. We note as well that the respondent appears to have exhausted all avenues of appeal within the church so jurisdiction could also be found on that basis. Indeed, we were advised after the hearing that the respondent’s application for reinstatement had also be refused.
3. Robson v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2016 ONSC 5579
 In Conway, the appellant had a long history of disciplinary proceedings with the Law Society which is somewhat analogous to the case before me. The appellant was disbarred because of a finding that he had engaged in unauthorized practice, but that finding and consequent disbarment were set aside on appeal. Subsequently, the appellant commenced an action against the Law Society alleging that he had been unfairly singled out by them and that he had been denied due process.
The most-consulted French-language decision Droit de la famille — 101530, 2010 QCCS 2976
 L’émancipation d’un mineur doit être fondée sur un motif sérieux et la décision de l’accorder doit être prise dans l’intérêt de ce dernier.
* 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.