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. Abdulaali v Salih, 2017 ONSC 1609
1. The next time anyone at Legal Aid Ontario tells you they’re short of money, don’t believe it. It can’t possibly be true. Not if they’re funding cases like this.
2. The facts are simple. There are no complicated legal issues. Hardly worth a written endorsement, really.
3. But every now and then taxpayers ought to be told how their hard earned dollars are spent.
2. R. v. Paterson, 2017 SCC 15
 This appeal raises three distinct issues: (1) the applicability of the common law confessions rule to statements tendered in a voir dire under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; (2) whether, on the facts of this case, exigent circumstances, within the meaning of s. 11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 (“CDSA”), made it impracticable to obtain a warrant before entering and searching the appellant’s residence; and (3) whether the failure by police to comply with post-seizure reporting requirements constituted an infringement of s. 8 of the Charter. In addition, and depending on its determination of the second and third issues, the Court may have to consider whether the evidence obtained as the result of a warrantless entry and search of the appellant’s residence should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
 These issues arise from a warrantless entry by police officers into the apartment of the appellant, Brendan Paterson, which followed his agreement to surrender several marihuana “roaches”. Once inside, the police observed a bulletproof vest, a firearm and drugs. They arrested the appellant and obtained a telewarrant, which led to the discovery of other firearms and drugs and to charges against the appellant in a nine-count indictment. At trial, the appellant alleged that the warrantless entry into his residence breached his s. 8 Charter right to be secure from an unreasonable search or seizure, as there were no “exigent circumstances” rendering it impracticable to obtain a warrant, within the meaning of s. 11(7) of the CDSA. Additionally, he alleged a further s. 8 breach arising from the police filing a late and incomplete report to the clerk of the court for the telewarrant.
3. The Law Society of Upper Canada v Fingold, 2017 ONSC 1370
 I rejected Mr. Fingold’s argument that he was not infringing s. 26.1 of the Law Society Act because he was merely paying licenced paralegals or conveyancers to register the relevant documents. The evidence demonstrated that Mr. Fingold was giving advice with respect to legal interests, rights or responsibilities with respect to persons, and that the paralegals/conveyancers were relying upon and acting on Mr. Fingold’s advice. I found that Mr. Fingold was deliberately trying to circumvent the clear language of the September 2, 2010 court order.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Ville de Québec c. GM Développement inc., 2017 QCCA 385
 La lecture des deux documents mentionnés ci-dessus permet de constater qu’en les adoptant, le conseil d’arrondissement s’en est tenu à sa compétence en matière d’urbanisme et qu’il n’a pas ratifié, en ce faisant, l’entente de partenariat dont parle le juge de première instance.
* 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.