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. Brake v. PJ-M2R Restaurant Inc., 2017 ONCA 402
 Since the employment income that Ms. Brake earned during her statutory entitlement period is not deductible from the damages award, the trial judge ought to have determined her statutory entitlement period and identified which items of employment income were attributable to that period and which were attributable to the Balance of the Notice Period.
2. Eryn B Logie Family Law v West, 2017 ABQB 339
 Dealing first with the issue of whether the 56 accounts were periodic final accounts or periodic interim accounts, the reasoning of the Chief Justice applies here – these are periodic final accounts. The reality is that this was not a success-based litigation with respect to fees. There was to be no bonus for success or diminishing of account for lack of success. This was a highly conflicted, lengthy family law matter involving children, which, in my opinion, leaves little room for a discussion of “success”. According to the terms of the Retainer Agreement, there was to be no adjustment to the fees pending the result of the litigation. The Retainer Agreement provided for a time-based fee where charges were based on the amount of time spent on the matter. The 56 accounts are periodic final accounts. To quote the Chief Justice: “That was the deal. That was the written agreement.” (Attila at para 27).
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)
3. R v Wruck, 2017 ABCA 155
 It does seem to me that when a middle aged man is convicted of murder, even a murder that occurred many years ago, and the nature of the murder is domestic, and the circumstances are reasonably well established by the trial judge’s reasons, and the ground of appeal is not dispositive, the individual member of the public that is referred to in Oland – namely a person who is “thoughtful, dispassionate, informed of the circumstances of the case and respectful of society’s fundamental values” — would be persuaded that it is not justified to grant judicial interim release pending the appeal.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Boudreault c. R., 2016 QCCA 1907
 La suramende compensatoire fait partie du paysage pénal depuis presque trente ans. En octobre 2013, cependant, son imposition est devenue obligatoire. L’appelant soutient que le retrait de la discrétion judiciaire de dispenser un contrevenant du paiement de la suramende compensatoire est inconstitutionnel, car ce retrait ouvre la porte à des violations de l’article 12 de la Charte, à savoir l’imposition de peines exagérément disproportionnées.
* 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.