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. R v Vader, 2018 ABQB 1
 Applying that test to this case, leads to these conclusions. In this case, the evidence as found by the trial judge supported the inference that the Accused possessed both items as weapons. Again, on the evidence found by the trial judge, the possibility that the items were possessed for a non-violent use was not reasonable. Therefore, the trial judge was right to conclude that the items were weapons. Whether the Accused actually intended to use the items as weapons and if so when, becomes irrelevant.
2. R. v. Fuller, 2017 ONCJ 865
 In my opinion, it comes down to a matter of fairness. If the accused gave up something and agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a joint submission on sentence he otherwise may not get, then it may be argued that it is appropriate to allow him to withdraw his plea. If as mentioned earlier, the crown case had some weaknesses, or if the accused gave up arguably valid Charter arguments which could have brought into question the crown’s prospects of conviction, then fairness would dictate the accused be restored to his previous position and allow him to argue these issues.
3. R. v. Tacchi, 2017 BCPC 400
 In my view, to the extent that denunciation and general deterrence is necessary to be addressed in this sentencing, that need has been satisfied by the damage the Accused has already suffered to his reputation, and will continue to suffer, as a result of “wanted posters” being circulated and remaining on social media. These postings will endure and remain on the internet for the foreseeable future for the world to see and may well have a more general deterrent effect than a conditional sentence order.
The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Marakah, 2017 CSC 59
 Les Canadiens peuvent‑ils raisonnablement s’attendre à ce que les messages textes qu’ils envoient demeurent privés, même après qu’ils soient parvenus à destination? Ou l’État peut‑il librement, quelles que soient les circonstances, prendre connaissance sans mandat des messages textes se trouvant dans l’appareil du destinataire? Le présent pourvoi soulève la question de savoir si la protection contre les fouilles, perquisitions et saisies abusives garantie à l’art. 8 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés peut s’appliquer à ces messages.
* 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.