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. Buenrostro-Ramirez, 2017 ONCJ 101
 While it makes little to no difference for analytical purposes, the alternative defence position, and the one I find more accurately reflects the informational function and mandatory impact of the statutory demand, is that the officer did not make an ASD demand until he read it from his notebook and translated it into non-legalese at approximately 11:25pm – some 10 minutes after he had formed the reasonable suspicion to make such demand. Saib’s verbalization of the demand was not made “forthwith” or, in the language of the settled line of authority since Bernshaw and Woods, immediately. Nor, in my view, were there any exigent or pressing circumstances that compelled or excuse any delay in the making of the demand. There was no extensive damage or serious injuries. Other officers were already on-scene when Saib arrived and were attending to traffic duties and the occupants of the second vehicle. And Saib was equipped with a currently calibrated ASD that he believed was in proper working order. It is not a question of the precise duration of the gap between the formation of the requisite belief and the demand but the fact that the demand was simply not made “without delay”.
2. R. v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2016 ABCA 326
 It is conceded that a mandatory non-publication order was made under s. 486.4(2.2) of the Criminal Code respecting the identity of the youthful victim. It is also conceded that the respondent had posted articles to its website disclosing the identity of the youthful victim, prior to the non-publication order being made. The respondent has agreed not to make any further postings, but has declined to remove the historical postings. The Crown brought an application for contempt and for removal of the postings, and then brought this application for an interim mandatory injunction requiring the immediate removal of the historical postings.
3. J.J. v. C.C., 2016 ONCA 718
 This is the principal question in this appeal. Did the appellant owe a duty of care to J.J., who participated in stealing the Camry? On the face of things, the notion that an innocent party could owe a duty of care to someone who steals from him seems extravagant. But matters are not so simple.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Awashish c. R., 2016 QCCA 1164
 Le dossier, tel que constitué, présente une difficulté importante qui empêche la Cour de statuer sur l’étendue de l’obligation de communication du ministère public à l’égard des informations concernant la manipulation et l’entretien des appareils qui servent à prélever les échantillons d’haleine et à mesurer le taux d’alcoolémie. La Cour n’a, en effet, aucune information sur la pertinence des renseignements faisant l’objet de la requête en divulgation sur laquelle un juge de la Cour du Québec n’a pas encore statué. Il n’est donc pas possible de classer les renseignements demandés dans la catégorie des fruits de l’enquête ou non, de savoir si l’information est en possession du ministère public ou d’un tiers et, en conséquence, de statuer sur la norme de pertinence applicable. Il faut se rappeler que la pertinence d’un renseignement s’évalue en fonction de l’usage que compte en faire l’appelante pour sa défense.
* 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.