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. Vanshaw Enterprises Ltd v Mayfield Investments Ltd, 2016 ABQB 619
 The landlord argues forcefully that the missing schedule is a red herring. The obligation to pay rent was not subject to schedule “A”, and furthermore the tenant, through at least two different representatives, was on-site during the entire construction period. They knew what was being built. They had access to the construction plans. They saw the purpose-built casino as it was being constructed, because the casino was already operating in other premises within the Medicine Hat Lodge throughout construction.
2. Styles v Alberta Investment Management Corporation, 2017 ABCA 1
 On the correct interpretation of the Plan and the Participation Agreement as a whole the word “may” was not intended to introduce an element of discretion. First of all, the Plan is a lengthy and detailed document, which attempts to deal directly with any possible contingency. The “guidelines above” in fact deal with 11 specific scenarios, from “new hire” to “death”. A number of them relate to termination of employment for various reasons. The expression “may be forfeited” merely refers back to some of these 11 scenarios where forfeiture of grants could occur.
3. Rollins v Niagara Regional Police Service et al., 2016 ONSC 7735
 Mr. Rollins did not take a fighting stance or invite PC Pouli to fight. This was not witnessed by any person aside from PC Pouli and PC Tomiuck, and PC Tomiuck did not have a good view. It is not reasonable to believe Mr. Rollins, a person who was enrolled in a police foundations course would want to fight with a police officer. In any event, given his boxing experience, it is unlikely he could have been subdued as easily as he was. If he intended to fight, he would have fought.
The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Jordan, 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.