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. Clifford, 2016 BCCA 336
 In this case, there was no “independent” or “other” evidence of fabrication that would bring the appellant’s statements into the exception to the general rule that a disbelieved alibi cannot be used to support an inference of guilt. Although my colleague takes the view that the appellant’s response to the RCMP that he did not want to know about what had happened, together with his lack of curiosity as to whether Luke had been hurt, constituted independent evidence of concoction, I cannot agree. This was only evidence that might have supported the inference Mr. Clifford was lying; it went no further. The fact the defence failed to argue to the contrary does not change the general rule.
2. R v Brown, 2016 ABCA 192
 The Supreme Court of Canada has granted Adam Michael Brown permission to appeal from his convictions for second degree murder and assault with a weapon but has remanded that appeal to this Court, in conjunction with his application to admit new evidence. If admitted, we are to determine whether a miscarriage of justice would result by upholding his convictions in the face of that new evidence and, if so, to order an appropriate remedy.
3. Bennett v Lenovo, 2017 ONSC 1082
 But the case law is clear that a term will not be implied if it is inconsistent or otherwise conflicts with an express provision in the agreement. Here, as already noted, the Lenovo sales agreement that was viewable on-line when the plaintiff purchased his laptop on the defendant’s website and “clicked” his acceptance, made clear in Article 5.2 that the installed software was being sold “without warranties or conditions of any kind.”
The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Harrison, 2017 QCCA 263
 J’ajouterai que l’appel confère à l’avocat un rôle particulier qui exige une honnêteté intellectuelle sans faille. À ce stade, la préoccupation relative à la mise en place d’une stratégie légitime entourant la présentation de la preuve en première instance n’est plus en cause. En appel, le rôle de l’avocat consiste plutôt à commenter objectivement la preuve, à discuter de sa légalité et de la règle de droit applicable. Une cour d’appel doit donc s’attendre de cet officier de justice que l’intérêt de son client soit sa seule préoccupation et qu’aucune allégation mettant en doute son éthique ne vienne teinter son indépendance ainsi que la pertinence de son argumentaire et de ses observations.
* 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.