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. Engel v Edmonton Police Association, 2017 ABQB 495
 I agree that given Mr. Engel’s profession, the statements in the Article are particularly injurious. The Article explicitly refers to incompetence, frivolous and vexatious conduct which implicitly suggests dishonest motives and overall suggests professional impropriety. Combined, when considering the lengthy and public career of the plaintiff, are all damaging to his reputation as a lawyer, and to his position and standing in the community.
2. R v Saretzky, 2017 ABQB 496
 I have considered the argument made by Defence Counsel that a sentence lasting an inmate’s natural lifetime leaves them with little incentive to abide by prison rules. However, it goes without saying that Mr. Saretzky has demonstrated no regard for societal rules of any kind – be they legal, moral, or social. In fact, Mr. Saretzky’s actions offend even the most elemental and fundamental human norms. I do hope that in his lifetime Mr. Saretzky finds respect for himself and his fellow person, and gains some insight into the value of life and the basic principles which bind us all. No matter where he is, he and his community will be the better for it.
3. Heinrichs v Woo, 2017 ABQB 492
 The undisputed applicable law distinguishes between “patent” and “latent” defects. A patent defect is one which is discoverable by inspection or ordinary vigilance. A latent defect is one that is not discoverable by inspection or ordinary vigilance. A purchaser has no claim in respect of patent defects – the principal, caveat emptor, buyer beware, applies. In some circumstances a purchaser may have a claim in respect of latent defects and in those circumstances caveat emptor does not apply.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Vidéotron c. Ville de Gatineau, 2017 QCCS 3571
 Le Tribunal conclut que les Règlements sont invalides. Leur caractère véritable est de régir la planification, la construction, l’emplacement, l’entretien et le maintien en place des réseaux de télécommunication. Cette matière relève de la compétence du Parlement sur le domaine des télécommunications, conformément à l’article 91 (10) a) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867.
* 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.