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. Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9
 This appeal calls on the Court to consider, once again, the troubling question of the approach to be taken in judicial review of decisions of administrative tribunals. The recent history of judicial review in Canada has been marked by ebbs and flows of deference, confounding tests and new words for old problems, but no solutions that provide real guidance for litigants, counsel, administrative decision makers or judicial review judges. The time has arrived for a reassessment of the question.
2. Groves v. UTS Consultants Inc., 2019 ONSC 5605
 When the employer has sought to contract out of the ESA, a saving provision cannot be used to rewrite the express language in an agreement to cause it to comply: Rossman v. Canadian Solar Inc., 2018 ONSC 7172 (CanLII), 300 A.C.W.S. (3d) 69, at paras. 67-70. The Termination Provision cannot be interpreted to comply with the ESA because, contrary to s. 9(1), it specifically precludes an interpretation that would include Mr. Groves’ prior service with UTS. As a result, the saving clause does not assist and the Termination Provision cannot be read up in order to bring it into compliance with the ESA.
3. Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),  2 SCR 817, 1999 CanLII 699
1 L’Heureux-Dubé J. — Regulations made pursuant to s. 114(2) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, empower the respondent Minister to facilitate the admission to Canada of a person where the Minister is satisfied, owing to humanitarian and compassionate considerations, that admission should be facilitated or an exemption from the regulations made under the Act should be granted. At the centre of this appeal is the approach to be taken by a court to judicial review of such decisions, both on procedural and substantive grounds. It also raises issues of reasonable apprehension of bias, the provision of written reasons as part of the duty of fairness, and the role of children’s interests in reviewing decisions made pursuant to s. 114(2).
The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Piazza, 2018 QCCA 948
 L’unique question en litige est donc de savoir si les policiers ont enfreint le droit à l’assistance d’un avocat visé par l’alinéa 10b) de la Charte qui protège toute personne détenue ou arrêtée. Elle met en cause la tension qui existe entre le droit à l’avocat et l’ordre de fournir immédiatement un échantillon d’haleine : R. v. George, 2004 CanLII 6210 (ON CA), 2004 CanLII 6210, par. 1 (C.A.O.). Dans l’arrêt R. v. Quansah, 2012 ONCA 123 (CanLII), la Cour écrit au par. 14 « we are yet again asked to consider what the “forthwith” requirement in s. 254(2) means ». Pourtant, la Cour suprême s’est prononcée à plusieurs reprises sur la question. Manifestement, la situation ne semble pas claire.
* 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.