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. College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta v. Collett, 2019 ABCA 461
 Section 118(4) allows the complaints director who has lawfully exercised the authority under section 118(1) to direct the regulated member to cease practicing medicine until the complaints director receives the results of the examinations ordered under section 118(1).
 The complaints director’s exercise of his or her authority under subsection 118(1) diminishes a physician’s privacy interests and can only be justified on the ground that the College needs to be satisfied a physician’s health does not impair his or her ability to practice medicine safely and competently.
2. R. v. Ahmad, 2019 ONCJ 853
 As the appellant appeared to acknowledge during oral argument, s. 39.1 is valid provincial traffic legislation. The pith and substance of the provision is to regulate commercial driving in Ontario. That is a valid provincial objective. This authority to regulate the vehicles and highways is well-established. The province has authority to pass legislation regulating drivers picking up fares for compensation. Simply because the provision may incidentally impact on an area of federal jurisdiction does not make the law ultra vires. The real issue in this appeal is whether the legislation can be enforced at the airport.
3. Steam Whistle Brewing Inc v Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission, 2019 ABCA 468
 In 2016, the Commission implemented a new Mark-up regime to charge all beer brewers the same rate (the “2016 Mark-up”). However, a complementary grant program was implemented at the same time, which gave certain Alberta craft beer brewers grants equivalent to the difference between the amounts payable by them under 2015 and 2016 Mark-ups. Great Western, a Saskatchewan company, sued the Commission claiming the 2016 Mark-up and grant program violated s 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867 because they amounted to an ultra vires indirect tax, and violated s 121 as a barrier to interprovincial trade. Steam Whistle also challenged the 2016 Mark-up.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Pharmaciens (Ordre professionnel des) c. Malak, 2019 CanLII 110433 (QC CDOPQ)
 Sur un téléphone d’une autre pharmacie, le pharmacien est-il toujours obligé de transférer le dossier sans vérifier auprès de la cliente? Quel est le délai acceptable pour procéder au transfert? Parle-t-on en termes de minutes, d’heures? La conduite de l’intimé s’écarte-t-elle de façon importante de ce qui est acceptable que cela constitue une faute déontologique? Le Conseil l’ignore.
* 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.