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. Hawkes v. Max Aicher (North America) Limited, 2021 ONSC 4290 (CanLII)
 In this case, we are concerned exclusively with statutory construction. Matters of statutory interpretation, like other questions of law, are evaluated on a reasonableness standard. As a reviewing court, in accordance with the guidance of Vavilov on the application of the reasonableness standard, we do not undertake a de novo analysis of the question. Instead, we must examine the administrative decision as a whole, including the reasons provided by the decisionmaker and the outcome that was reached: see Vavilov, at para. 116. In doing so, we apply the “modern principle” of statutory interpretation; that is, that the words of a statute must be read “in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament”: Vavilov, at para. 117, citing Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 27, at para. 21; Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, at para. 26; and E. Driedger, Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983), at p. 87.
2. R v Bank, 2021 ABCA 223 (CanLII)
 The community does not expect jurists to decide this important question – when does a law enforcement service cease to be the detector and preventer of crime and become the overbearing instigator of crime – without taking into account the difficult and challenging aspects of law enforcement work and the harm criminals, particularly drug dealers, cause to their immediate victims and society as a whole. Jurists must be alive to real world conditions and produce standards that will work in the field. Common sense must not be abandoned.
 Only entrapment judgments that stay criminal proceedings against persons who have committed crimes in the clearest of cases of police abuse will reduce the risk that the courts themselves will bring the administration of justice into disrepute by allowing criminals to escape punishment.
3. Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24 (CanLII)
 While children should be shielded from the economic consequences of divorce to the fullest extent possible, the federal child support regime contemplates that the family as a whole — including the child — will share the rising and falling fortunes of the payor parent, just as they would have before the separation. Because child support under the Divorce Act is tied to payor income and income tends to fluctuate, a child support order or agreement reflects a snapshot in time and is never final (D.B.S., at para. 64; D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2005 ABCA 2, 361 A.R. 60 (“D.B.S. (C.A.)”), at para. 100; Brear v. Brear, 2019 ABCA 419, 97 Alta. L.R. (6th) 1, at para. 20, per Pentelechuk J.A.). Various legal, administrative and consent-based mechanisms exist to periodically change child support orders to bring them in line with financial realities.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Pharmaciens (Ordre professionnel des) c. Hamel, 2021 QCCDPHA 25 (CanLII)
 Il convient de noter que l’exemption accordée aux termes de l’article 56 Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances ne s’applique pas de même que l’article 36 du Règlement sur les stupéfiants qui concerne les préparations à faible dose de codéine.
 Ainsi, à titre de pharmacienne, l’intimée est autorisée à posséder l’hydromorphone. Toutefois, si elle souhaite en prendre possession à titre personnel, une ordonnance conforme est requise.
* 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.