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. Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII)
 In 2018, Parliament enacted the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, S.C. 2018, c. 12, s. 186 (“GGPPA”). Three provinces challenged the constitutionality of the GGPPA by references to their respective courts of appeal. The question divided the courts. In split decisions, the courts of appeal for Saskatchewan and Ontario held that the GGPPA is constitutional, while the Court of Appeal of Alberta held that it is unconstitutional. Those decisions have now been appealed to this Court.
2. Duggan v. Durham Region Non-Profit Housing Corporation, 2020 ONCA 788 (CanLII)
 Before r. 6.1.01 was enacted, neither the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (“CJA”), nor the Rules expressly conferred the power to bifurcate a civil trial. Nevertheless, as Morden J.A. explained in Elcano Acceptance Ltd. v. Richmond, Richmond, Stambler & Mills, 1986 CanLII 2591 (ON CA), 55 O.R. (2d) 56 (C.A.), at p. 5, the court had the inherent jurisdiction to exercise its discretion to bifurcate a non-jury trial, including ordering separate hearings to determine liability and damages. He described the power as “narrowly circumscribed”. The power to bifurcate had to be exercised with caution and in the interests of justice: Elcano, at p. 6.
3. Belton v. Spencer, 2021 ONSC 2029 (CanLII)
 If a harmful animal is not in the possession or control of its owner and at the material time is under control of someone else, the defendant owner cannot be held liable under the scienter doctrine although there might be alternative liability, for example, by negligence if the defendant had not taken reasonable care to prevent injury from being caused by the animal even though it was under another party’s control or someone else’s possession. Fridman at p. 242.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Pharmaciens (Ordre professionnel des) c. Gosselin, 2021 QCCDPHA 17 (CanLII)
 Le Conseil doit également tenir compte de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel dans Tremblay c. Dionne, qui souligne que les éléments essentiels d’un chef d’une plainte disciplinaire ne sont pas définis par son libellé, mais par les dispositions du Code de déontologie ou des règlements auxquels le professionnel aurait contrevenu. Le Conseil devra, par conséquent, décider de la culpabilité ou de l’acquittement de l’intimé en fonction de chacune des dispositions invoquées.
* 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.