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. Lifechoice Ltd. v Adams, 2019 CanLII 28274 (AB ESU)
 Like most commissioned salespeople, the Respondent’s income was dependent in whole or in part on her sales success. The fact an individual is paid commission does not remove him or her from the definition of “employee” under the Code. There must be some indicia of entrepreneurial activity on the part of the individual to establish an independent contractor arrangement. In the present case, there is no evidence of entrepreneurial activity. The Respondent did not purchase or own the products she sold; her chance of profit/risk of loss were totally dependent on her sales efforts for the Appellant; she was not responsible for the management of the Appellant’s business; and her work was undertaken under the name of the Appellant, not her own business. The Respondent was restricted to selling only the Appellant’s line of products.
2. Thomas v. Wohleber, 2020 ONSC 1965 (CanLII)
 In considering the dictionary definition of the term, urgent, the circumstances of urgency set out in the Notice, the examples of urgency offered in Hood and Rosen, and the cases cited above that apply the Notice’s test of urgency, I find that the following factors are necessary in order to meet the Notice’s requirement of urgency:
1. The concern must be immediate; that is one that cannot await resolution at a later date;
2. The concern must be serious in the sense that it significantly affects the health or safety or economic well-being of parties and/or their children;
3. The concern must be a definite and material rather than a speculative one. It must relate to something tangible (a spouse or child’s health, welfare, or dire financial circumstances) rather than theoretical;
4. It must be one that has been clearly particularized in evidence and examples that describes the manner in which the concern reaches the level of urgency.
3. Skuce v. Skuce, 2020 ONSC 1881 (CanLII)
 In my view, this case falls within the ambit of the Notice to the Profession as it deals with safety of the child/parent, restrictions of contact and well-being of the child and issues relating to the retention of the children. It also will deal with upholding respect and compliance with existing Court Orders.
 In order to deal with this health crisis, the Superior Court of Justice issued a Notice to the Profession dated March 15, 2020 which is available at https:/www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/covid-19-suspension-fam/…
The most-consulted French-language decision was Droit de la famille — 20474, 2020 QCCS 1051 (CanLII)
 Par conséquent, malgré que cela puisse paraître paradoxal, la présence de la COVID-19 considérée comme une urgence sanitaire n’est pas en soi, en absence de symptômes pour les individus concernés, un motif suffisant nécessitant une modification du statu quo, de la garde et des accès pour les enfants.
 Bien entendu, les parties devront respecter les consignes d’hygiène et de sécurité dans leur milieu respectif.
* 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.