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. Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., 2019 ONCA 1
 The appellant commenced this proposed class action on behalf of “[a]ny person, since 2012, who worked or continues to work for Uber in Ontario as a Partner and/or independent contractor, providing any of the services outlined in Paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim pursuant to a Partner and/or independent contractor agreement” (the “Class” or “Class Members”). The Class Members provide food delivery services and/or personal transportation services using various Uber Apps. For convenience, I will refer to them collectively as “drivers” below.
 In his proposed class action, the appellant seeks a declaration that drivers in Ontario, who have used the Driver App to provide food delivery and/or personal transportation services to customers, are employees of Uber and governed by the provisions of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 (the “ESA”). The claim seeks declarations that Uber has violated the provisions of the ESA and that the arbitration provisions of the services agreements entered into between the parties are void and unenforceable. The action also claims damages of $400 million.
2. R. v. Stipo, 2019 ONCA 3
 Moreover, as a person charged with an indictable offence, the respondent is entitled to disclosure of material and information in the possession or control of the prosecuting Crown, as well as “obviously relevant” information in the hands of other Crown entities. As we have already seen, the rolling log falls into this disclosure basket. This right to disclosure and reciprocal duty to disclose relevant, non-privileged information is an integral part of the respondent’s right to make full answer and defence, a right that is constitutionally grounded. It is true that a statutory disclosure regime can displace the process laid down by Stinchcombe, but such a “regime” would require more than a bare prohibition on disclosure.
3. R. v. Penner, 2018 MBQB 200
 On August 26, 2016 Mr. Penner was driving his wife’s car at 67 km/h through a 50 km/h photo-radar speed enforcement. In due course, a ticket for a $272.75 fine arrived in the mail. Mr. Penner, notionally on behalf of his wife, challenged the ticket at a hearing on May 18, 2017. Ultimately, Mr. Penner did not dispute any facts. As he said, he was there to prove he was a human being, saying neither he nor his wife had ever taken on the capacity of a person, and hence the HTA did not apply to them. The court entertained his arguments but quickly disagreed, entering a conviction and confirming the fine.
The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Grant,  2 RCS 353, 2009 CSC 32
 Monsieur Grant interjette appel des déclarations de culpabilité prononcées contre lui quant à une série d’infractions relatives aux armes à feu. Les accusations portées contre lui découlaient de la saisie d’un revolver survenue à l’occasion d’un contact entre des policiers et lui sur un trottoir de Toronto. Les déclarations de culpabilité reposant sur le dépôt en preuve du revolver, il faut déterminer en l’espèce si cet élément de preuve a été obtenu par suite de la violation de droits garantis à M. Grant par la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés et, le cas échéant, s’il y avait lieu de l’exclure en application du par. 24(2) de la Charte.
* 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.