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. Theberge-Lindsay v. 3395022 Canada Inc. (Kutcher Dentistry Professional Corporation), 2019 ONCA 469
 We agree with the appellant’s submissions that Ms. Theberge-Lindsay’s unequivocal resignation and re-hiring in 2005 marked a break in the employment relationship after which an entirely new contract was reached between her and Dr. Kutcher. There was consideration for that new employment contract, that is, Ms. Theberge-Lindsay’s offer to again be employed by Dr. Kutcher and his acceptance of her offer to again employ her. On this basis, the Employment Standards Act, 2000 minimum notice is the maximum amount to which the respondent is entitled, measured from 2005. On this basis, she is entitled to 7.5 weeks of salary at $1,204 per week, less $1,200 severance already paid.
2. Rashiq v Derrick Golf and Winter Club, 2019 ABQB 435
 But, given that I have not found a breach of the standard of care, I do not need to spend undue attention on the issue of causation. As I just found, the Derrick’s activity was not negligent. Moreover, such activity was not a necessary cause of the flooding of the Rashiq property; instead, the flooding stemmed from the fact that that property is located at a sag or low point in the area and from the inability of the storm sewer to handle a 1 in 100-year storm event like the one that occurred on July 18, 2012. This falls far short of meeting the “but for” test for causation (Clements v Clements,  2 SCR 181, 2012 SCC 32 (CanLII)). As the SCC stated in Clements, at para 21, “to allow recovery where the injury was the result of neutral factors would neither further the goals of compensation, fairness and deterrence, nor comport with the theory of corrective justice that underlies the law of negligence.”
3. Argue v Argue (Meier), 2019 SKQB 137
 With respect to the impact of any loss, I determine as follows. The respondent seeks to rely on a rental loss. This appears to have been a short term venture as it is not a historical item in her financial background. For this reason, as well, I decline to consider it to reduce her income from her employment. While she is at liberty to engage in any type of venture she chooses, those ventures, and their resultant impact on income, do not automatically work to reduce income for child support purposes. I do not see a basis to make such a connection in this case. The respondent has not provided any reason for its inclusion, other than it happened. This is not sufficient support to reduce her income.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Cousineau c. Intact, compagnie d’assurances, 2019 QCCA 1022
[ En l’espèce, la preuve ne permet cependant pas de conclure que l’intimée a intentionnellement privé l’appelant de sa libre disposition du bâtiment sinistré en refusant la réclamation ni qu’elle a intentionnellement porté atteinte à sa dignité ou à sa réputation en alléguant sa connaissance et sa participation à la culture de cannabis y ayant eu lieu. Ces allégations ne constituent pas en soi une preuve de la malveillance de l’intimée qui sera requise pour maintenir une demande de dommages-intérêts basée sur la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne. Dans les circonstances de l’espèce, la preuve ne donne pas non plus ouverture à conclure à une faute civile ayant causé des dommages-intérêts compensatoires ni à un abus de procédure.
* 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.