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. Royal Bank of Canada v. Trang, 2016 SCC 50
 This appeal raises the issue of the proper interpretation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5 (“PIPEDA”). The Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”) is a judgment creditor of Phat Trang and Phuong Trang (“the Trangs”) and seeks a sheriff’s sale of the Trangs’ property, for which the sheriff requires a mortgage discharge statement. RBC has been unable to obtain the statement from the Trangs and thus brought a motion to compel the Bank of Nova Scotia (“Scotiabank”), the Trangs’ mortgagee, to produce the mortgage discharge statement. The Trangs and Scotiabank are not involved in the present appeal, and counsel for the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (“Privacy Commissioner”) have been appointed amicus curiae.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)
2. R v Adams, 2016 ABQB 648
 The Crown argued that inmate behaviours were not under the control of the guards. That is naïve. This is MAX pod, Maximum security. Lock up is 23 hours per day. Of course the guards had control. While there is no evidence the guards allowed these things to occur in the sense that they collectively, or individually, intended such occurrences, it is plain that the guards on duty at the time of the events were not particularly diligent to ensure that the assaults did not occur. That is not surprising given the nature of the accused’s attitude and the problems he caused for the guards. That does not however justify the apparent lack of effort to keep the accused safe. In coming to this conclusion, I do not accept that there were guards who directly or indirectly encouraged other inmates to assault the accused. There is no evidence beyond the accused’s evidence to suggest that the guards in any way acted intentionally in arranging the assaults that Adams suffered at the hands of other inmates. The accused’s evidence on this subject is based upon hearsay and deductions he has made. Frankly, I am not convinced as to the accuracy of his observations. Therefore, the assaults experienced by the accused will be taken in to consideration on sentencing, but they do not amount to action by the authorities that would of themselves justify a stay. The attitude of the Centre staff is, however...