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. Warner v Calgary Regional Health Authority (Rockyview General Hospital), 2020 ABQB 172 (CanLII)
 An independent intervening event is an event unrelated to the tort, such as a disease or a non-tortious accident, that occurs after the plaintiff suffers injuries from the tort: Athey at para 31. A finding of an independent intervening event does not necessarily result in a break in the chain of causation and a finding of no liability: see Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd,  2 All ER 752 (HL) [Jobling]; see also Penner v Mitchell (1978), 1978 ALTASCAD 201 (CanLII), 89 DLR (3d) 343 (ABCA) [Penner]. As noted in Athey, an independent intervening event can result in a reduction of damages, which reflects the impact of the event and upholds the principle that a defendant must return the plaintiff to their original position: at paras 31-33, citing Jobling and Penner.
2. Robertson v Arthikharnu, 2015 ABPC 257 (CanLII)
 For her services a lawyer is entitled to charge a fair and reasonable fee which will depend upon and reflect many factors. Rule 613 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alberta Regulation 390/68, lists six factors and the commentary under the Code of Conduct, s2.06(1), lists eleven factors. These factors include such matters as the time and effort required, the difficulty of the matter, the skill, labour, and responsibility involved, the results obtained, the terms of the agreement between the lawyer and the client, and others.
3. R. v Parsons, 2020 CanLII 77114 (NL PC)
 When imposing sentence for the offence of arson it is important not to focus solely on property damage. This is the lesser of the potential consequences of this offence. Arson “places occupants, neighbours and first responders at risk. Deliberately set fires can be uncontrollable. Regardless of the consequences an arsonist may seek or predict, a variety of additional and potentially catastrophic outcomes may occur” (see R. v. O’Hanley, 2020 ONSC 1310, at paragraph 54). As pointed out by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal in R. v. K.H. (1994), 1994 CanLII 17267 (NB CA), 146 N.B.R. (2d) 372, fire “no matter how well planned, is often erratic and unpredictable and gives rise to unforeseen consequences” (at paragraph 6).
The most-consulted French-language decision was Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. c. Simms Sigal & Co. Ltd., 2020 QCCA 1331 (CanLII)
 Il n’est pas ici question d’ambiguïté ou d’interprétation de l’exclusivité conférée à Simms qui n’auraient pas permis à Costco d’en comprendre la portée ou l’étendue, mais seulement de la connaissance qu’avait Costco de son existence. Comme le juge le souligne, les représentantes de Costco sont des spécialistes de la vente au détail et bien au fait du marché. Elles savent que les produits R & R se vendent au Canada dans des magasins haut de gamme à presque trois fois le prix que Costco va les offrir dans ses entrepôts. Il n’est donc pas étonnant pour Costco qu’un contrat de distribution exclusive au Canada ait été accordé à Simms.
* 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.