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. Innocon Inc. v. Daro Flooring Constructions Inc., 2021 ONSC 7558
 Parties should expect case conference to be used to resolve summarily procedural issues with greater frequency. With current backlogs and resource limitations, there is simply no judicial time available to schedule short motions especially those which, like here, are tactical and do not advance the resolution of the case on its merits.
2. Legree v. Origlieri, 2021 ONSC 7650
 In accordance with s.267.5(5) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, a Defendant may only be liable for the non-pecuniary losses of the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff can prove that he or she sustained either (a) a permanent serious disfigurement or (b) a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function. In this case, the Plaintiff is not alleging a disfigurement. The same limitations exist with respect to a Plaintiff’s claim for damages for health care costs, which is set out in s.267.5(3) of the Insurance Act.
3. R. v. Mabior, 2012 SCC 47 (CanLII),  2 SCR 584
 I turn first to the criticism that the Cuerrier test is uncertain. It is a fundamental requirement of the rule of law that a person should be able to predict whether a particular act constitutes a crime at the time he commits the act. The rule of law requires that laws provide in advance what can and cannot be done: Lord Bingham, The Rule of Law (2010). Condemning people for conduct that they could not have reasonably known was criminal is Kafkaesque and anathema to our notions of justice. After-the-fact condemnation violates the concept of liberty in s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and has no place in the Canadian legal system.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Dostie c. Procureur général du Canada, 2021 QCCS 4826
 Il n’est donc pas nécessaire de se demander si la Cour supérieure conservait sa compétence à l’égard de la validité de la Proclamation, entrée en vigueur avant l’entrée en vigueur de la Loi sur la Cour fédérale, le 1er juin 1971.
 On peut se poser la question relativement à la demande d’invalidité constitutionnelle de « tous les actes et toutes les choses faits invalidement par le gouvernement du Canada au nom des instruments invalides précités ». Il apparaitra ci-après que la demande à cet égard n’est pas faite dans un délai raisonnable.
* 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.