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. Jane Doe 464533 v N.D., 2017 ONSC 127
 I am not persuaded that the motion judge erred in his consideration of the evidence of N.D. that he would not file a defence and the plaintiff could do what she needed to do. In his discretion, the motion judge identified other factors that mitigated that statement. Although he did not make specific mention at that point in his reasons, he had summarized the evidence that the defendant had actively participated in settlement negotiations but that the settlement agreement was not signed because it required an immediate payment, which he could not pay.
2. Morse Shannon v Fancy, 2016 ONSC 7574
 In his written material contained in the Defendants’ motion record, Mr. Fancy argues that I ought to recuse myself from continuing to be the case management judge because of bias and he cites three main reasons: that my decision on the applications was wrong; that I failed to deal with the fact that MS has launched both applications and claims for the same relief; and that when I was a lawyer more than ten years ago, I was connected with a crime, specifically, a break and enter involving Mr. Fancy’s client.
3. Cornelson v Alliance Pipeline Ltd, 2017 ABCA 13
 The appellant submits the trial judge erred by finding Alliance’s obligations under the LTIP lasted only as long as the appellant was employed. That is, the appellant took issue with the trial judge’s finding that under the Employment Agreement the appellant was not entitled to compensation for the loss of the LTIP benefits he would have earned during a period of reasonable notice because the appellant was only entitled to severance pay, not the salary and other benefits which would have flowed to him during a period of reasonable notice. In executing the employment agreement, Cornelson agreed that this severance payment, based upon his salary, would compensate him for all losses arising from termination.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Dunsmuir c. Nouveau-Brunswick, 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.