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. Gamoff v. Hu, 2018 ONSC 2172
 When the residential real estate market is a rising market, most people – perhaps with the exception of first time buyers, are happy homeowners and investors. When the market turns and drops, it is not for the faint of heart. The facts of this case tragically demonstrate how one family, presumably desperate for their dream home, became embroiled in a bidding war and overextended their ability to finance the purchase price of that dream home.
2. Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada Post Corporation, 2017 FCA 153
 In my view, the Appeals Officer reasonably found that some obligations listed in subsection 125(1) cannot apply where the employer has no control over the work place. For example, the Appeals Officer recognized that if the employer does not own the buildings nor has a right to alter them, an employer cannot ensure that those buildings meet prescribed standards, as required under paragraph (a). Further, as the respondent argued, if the work place was not under the employer’s control, an employer could not install guard rails and fences, as required under paragraph (b). Conversely, even if the employer did not control the work place, the Appeals Officer recognized that an employer could ensure the safety of the equipment being used by its employees, as required under paragraph (t), so long as it controlled the employees’ activity.
3. R. v C.L.J.M., 2017 BCSC 1717
 As explained above, the reviewing judge always has the discretion, per s. 525(3), to consider “unreasonable delay” on the part of the Crown or the accused, but unreasonable delay is not the sole consideration at the first stage of the analysis, or the sole justification for a review of the basis of the accused’s detention. In a case where the prosecutor has been responsible for “unreasonable delay”, the judge may conclude, depending on the nature and reasons for the delay in conjunction with all of the other factors in s. 515(10), that continued detention is not justified and the accused should be released. In a case where the accused has been responsible for “unreasonable delay”, the judge may decide, depending on the length and reasons for the delay, that the only reason the accused’s detention exceeded the prescribed time frame without a trial is because of the accused’s delay. This may lead to a determination that the initial basis for detaining the accused has not been overcome or overtaken. The reviewing judge should also take into account whether any concern about delay can be ameliorated by directions concerning the trial, as contemplated in s. 525(9).
The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Jordan,  1 RCS 631, 2016 CSC 27
 La justice rendue en temps utile est l’une des caractéristiques d’une société libre et démocratique. Elle revêt une importance particulière en matière criminelle. L’alinéa 11b) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés en est la preuve, puisqu’il garantit à l’inculpé le droit « d’être jugé dans un délai raisonnable ».
 La population canadienne s’attend en outre à ce que son système de justice criminelle juge les inculpés de manière diligente. Quand les mois suivant une inculpation au criminel deviennent des années, tout le monde en pâtit. Les inculpés demeurent dans l’incertitude et souvent détenus avant leur procès. Les victimes et leurs familles, qui dans bien des cas ont subi des pertes tragiques, ne peuvent tourner la page. Le public, quant à lui, dont l’intérêt est servi lorsque les inculpés sont traduits rapidement en justice, est frustré avec raison de voir des années passer avant la tenue d’un procès.
* 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.