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. Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2017 SCC 54
 The issue in this case is whether the British Columbia Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (“Minister”) erred in approving a ski resort development, despite claims by the Ktunaxa that the development would breach their constitutional right to freedom of religion and to protection of Aboriginal interests under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
2. Ross River Dena Council v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 YKSC 58
 That said, I think that the plain and ordinary meaning of the words “will be” in the relevant provision is sufficiently mandatory to indicate an obligation upon Canada to consider and settle Indian claims for compensation for lands required for the purposes of settlement. However, as Professor Sullivan urges, even if the ordinary meaning of a legislative text seems plain, courts must go on to consider the scheme of the legislation as part of the entire context.
3. Ross River Dena Council v. Canada, 2017 YKSC 59
 Accordingly, in my view, it was reasonable for Canada to take the position that it would only negotiate with RRDC on the basis of the UFA. To do otherwise may well have resulted in a Final Agreement which varied significantly from those of the other 11 Yukon First Nations who have obtained Final Agreements on the basis of the UFA. While it may be somewhat speculative, it is probably not unreasonable to expect that this could cause a considerable political upheaval between Yukon First Nations, and between those with Final Agreements and Canada. As Canada submitted, the content of the UFA emerged through negotiations over several years and resulted from a Yukon-made, unique process that was ultimately agreed to by all three parties, including RRDC’s bargaining agent, CYI. Therefore, it was reasonable for Canada to take the position that it would remain the template for negotiations with RRDC.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Agence du revenu du Québec c. 9141-5315 Québec inc., 2017 QCCQ 12233
 Les faits sont très simples. Le 26 octobre 2015, un inspecteur de Revenu Québec se présente au restaurant et achète de la nourriture. La caissière, Glorie Louis, ne lui remet pas la facture comme il se doit en vertu de l’article 350.51 de la Loi sur la taxe de vente du Québec.
 La défenderesse admet que son employée a effectivement omis de remettre la facture au client, mais elle invoque la défense de la diligence raisonnable et plaide qu’on ne devrait pas la tenir responsable.
* 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.