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. Canada (Governor General in Council) v. Mikisew Cree First Nation, 2016 FCA 311
 I am therefore of the view, for all the foregoing reasons, that the legislative process, from its very inception where policy options are discussed and developed to the actual enactment of a bill following its adoption by both Houses and the granting of royal assent by the Governor General, is a matter solely within the purview of Parliament. Imposing a duty to consult at any stage of the process, as a legal requirement, would not only be impractical and cumbersome and potentially grind the legislative process to a halt, but it would fetter ministers and other members of Parliament in their law-making capacity. As Justice Hughes astutely observed, “[…] intervention into the law-making process would constitute undue judicial interference on Parliament’s law-making function, thus compromising the sovereignty of Parliament” (Reasons for Judgment at para. 71).
2. Quebec (Criminal and Penal Prosecutions) v. Jodoin, 2017 SCC 26
 This appeal concerns the scope of the courts’ power to award costs against a lawyer personally in a criminal proceeding. Although the courts have the power to maintain respect for their authority and to preserve the integrity of the administration of justice, the appropriateness of imposing such a sanction in a criminal proceeding must be assessed in light of the special role played by defence lawyers and the rights of the accused persons they represent. In such cases, the courts must be cautious in exercising this discretion.
3. Biancaniello v. DMCT LLP, 2017 ONCA 386
 The client did not commence this action with a claim for negligent advice and a defence based on the release. Rather, the statement of claim seeks to set aside the release on the basis that it was entered into based on the misrepresentation by the accountants that their advice on the butterfly transaction would result in no tax consequences, and that because that turned out to be untrue, the release was unconscionable.
 The accountants responded by moving for summary judgment on the basis that the release released any claim against it arising from the impugned advice. The courts below found that the release did not bar the underlying negligence claim. I have found that the release does bar the underlying claim. This leaves the question whether there is anything left to be determined in the action.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Compagnie canadienne d’assurances générales Lombard c. Promutuel Portneuf-Champlain, société mutuelle d’assurances générales, 2016 QCCA 1903
 Ce pourvoi pose la question suivante : la juge pouvait-elle conclure, d’une part, qu’Econolodge était tenue à une obligation de surveillance, de prudence et de sécurité à l’égard des véhicules que ses clients ont stationnés sur son terrain et, d’autre part, qu’elle n’en avait pas la garde? À notre avis, il faut répondre par la négative dans les circonstances particulières de ce dossier.
* 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.