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. Talos v. Grand Erie District School Board, 2018 HRTO 680
 It is evident that employees who work after age 65 provide the same labour as they did when they were 64 years of age and would normally be guaranteed equal compensation, including access to benefits. Absent the impugned provision, a benefit differential that is only explained by the age of the employee would be prima facie age discrimination under the Code. In my view, a legislative provision that prevents a worker age 65 and older from being able to challenge any reduction or elimination of access to workplace benefits as age discrimination is a prima facie violation of s. 15(1) of the Charter. Relying on Tétrault-Gadoury, and distinguishing Withler, I do not accept the responses advanced by the Board that Mr. Talos suffered no disadvantage because of the “generous” nature of his pension, that “he [Talos] can lead an economically viable life during his senior years” because he benefited from being the member of a union, and that his transition to government funded programs at age 65 adequately substituted for benefits that he previously enjoyed as part of his remuneration package. I find that these considerations are irrelevant to determining whether Mr. Talos’ equality right (to equal compensation) in employment as guaranteed by s. 15(1) of the Charter was infringed.
2. Rosas v. Toca, 2018 BCCA 191
 In my view that is not the law, or at least not what the law should be for variations of existing contracts. The time has come to reform the doctrine of consideration as it applies in this context, and modify the pre‑existing duty rule, as so many commentators and several courts have suggested. When parties to a contract agree to vary its terms, the variation should be enforceable without fresh consideration, absent duress, unconscionability, or other public policy concerns, which would render an otherwise valid term unenforceable. A variation supported by valid consideration may continue to be enforceable for that reason, but a lack of fresh consideration will no longer be determinative. In this way the legitimate expectations of the parties can be protected. To do otherwise would be to let the doctrine of consideration work an injustice.
3. Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, 2018 ONCA 472
 In the case at bar, granting the rights sought would be even more extraordinary because it would ignore the corporate separateness of the various subsidiaries in between Chevron Corporation and Chevron Canada. The appellants would have this court proceed on the basis that Chevron Canada’s shares are directly owned by Chevron Corporation. They are not. CCCC owns those shares, and it is not a party to this action. Another corporation owns CCCC’s shares and so it goes up the corporate chain. We are being asked to ignore the legal reality of the way Chevron Corporation structured its subsidiary corporations. Clearly we are being asked to pierce the corporate veil, notwithstanding appellant counsel’s assertion, made in reply, that we are not.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Les Courageuses c. Rozon, 2018 QCCS 2089
 La demanderesse entend exercer pour le compte de la membre désignée et des membres du groupe une action en responsabilité civile extracontractuelle pour dommages-intérêts compensatoires et dommages-intérêts punitifs à l’encontre du défendeur M. Gilbert Rozon au motif que ce dernier aurait agressé et harcelé sexuellement de nombreuses femmes adultes et mineures pendant des décennies.
* 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.