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. Toronto Transit Commission v Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, 2021 CanLII 107805 (ON LA)
13. Labour relations between the parties is always enhanced by the parties reaching agreement over the resolution of their disputes. Absent agreement, disputes are arbitrated. In this matter the TTC has not indicated what its availability is to commence these arbitration proceedings. Indeed, the tenor of the correspondence on behalf of the TTC dated today and set out above seems to indicate that it is looking towards a hearing that will take months to complete, notwithstanding the potentially devastating short-term effect on its employees who are not vaccinated or hesitant to disclose their vaccination status. Be that as it may, arbitration under the collective agreement is a consensual process. I would think that having a ruling either way on the TTC’s Vaccination Policy would have assisted the parties in moving forward on this important issue. However, the inability of the TTC to find anyone within its extensive management ranks to instruct its counsel in this matter would actually leave counsel speechless and fundamentally militates against proceeding tomorrow in their absence. Accordingly, I grant the TTC’s request for an adjournment, and the consequent delay, notwithstanding the fact that we are dealing with the local implications of a global pandemic that has taken the lives of almost ten thousand people in Ontario alone.
2. Blake v. University Health Network, 2021 ONSC 7139
 It is perhaps necessary for me to underscore that this decision does not address the question of the merits or legality of the vaccine policy adopted by UHN. The interim injunction granted last week did not decide whether the requested injunction could or should issue. It merely decided that the status quo could be preserved with minimal impact upon the parties until now so as to permit a better opportunity to examine that very question. At this early stage, the plaintiff is required to satisfy the three-part test described in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC),  1 SCR 311 namely…
3. R v Pruden, 2021 ABPC 266
 The Court interprets the term “force” as that word is used in section 265(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada to include a force created by the movement of gas molecules which are inhaled and exhaled during the course of taking air into the lungs and expelling air from the lungs. The basic mechanism of breathing, to inhale and to exhale lung air, is caused simply by differences in air pressure of the atmosphere and air pressure within the lungs. The force created by the act of breathing is the result of differences in pressures between atmospheric air and air pressure within the lung. Air pressure is a force at the molecular level in the same manner as physical force visible to the naked eye. This is basic science, uncontroverted, and not requiring any expert opinion.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Pharmaciens (Ordre professionnel des) c. Lozano, 2021 QCCDPHA 39
 Toutefois, hormis l’expression de certains principes généraux, dont ceux énoncés à l’alinéa 1 de l’article 23 C. prof., selon lequel « Chaque ordre a pour principale fonction d’assurer la protection du public » et ceux prévus à l’article 156 C. prof., le Code des professions est silencieux sur les critères à considérer aux fins de la détermination de la sanction disciplinaire.
 Les tribunaux ont pallié cette situation en apportant l’éclairage nécessaire pour guider adéquatement les conseils de discipline devant décider de cette question.
* 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.