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. Mary Shuttleworth v. Licence Appeal Tribunal, 2018 ONSC 3790
 The Applicant then sought further information from the LAT about how the adjudicator arrived at her decision. She discovered that, pursuant to an unwritten review process imposed by the executive chair, the legal department sent the adjudicator’s draft decision to the executive chair for her review and comments. The executive chair provided comments to the adjudicator. The adjudicator thanked the executive chair for her helpful review of the decision and advised that she was working on revising it. Further revisions were made and the decision was released.
2. Ontario (Children’s Lawyer) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2018 ONCA 559
 Are a child-client’s litigation records with the Children’s Lawyer for Ontario subject to a father’s freedom of information access request? The answer turns on whether the records are “in the custody or under the control” of the Ministry of the Attorney General for Ontario (“MAG”) for purposes of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31 (“FIPPA”).
3. Toronto-Dominion Bank v Leadbetter, 2018 ABQB 472
 Ms. Leadbetter subscribes to the idea that she is composed of two (and possibly more) entities, which are distinguished by the use of punctuation and capitalization. She, the “real human on the land”, who occupies “the realm of reality”, is identified by a mixed case name with aberrant punctuation: “Stephanie-Lynn: Leadbetter”. Her belief is that she is linked to a separate entity, “STEPHANIE LEADBETTER”, who is an immaterial legal entity which Ms. Leadbetter calls an “Estate”, “a persona”, and “a franchisee”. The non-corporeal aspect of this duality is often referred to as the “Strawman”, though OPCA litigants like Ms. Leadbetter use many different names for this non-physical doppelganger.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Abishira c. Stubhub inc., 2018 QCCS 2549
 Les membres du recours se voient offrir par le règlement proposé de récupérer une partie de leur “trop payé” en autant qu’ils acceptent d’acheter un autre billet de spectacle, telle offre n’étant ouverte pour acceptation qu’en autant que l’utilisation du rabais soit faite dans un délai limité au mieux à trois ans.
* 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.