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. Singh v. Trump, 2016 ONCA 747
 In the mid-2000s, Sarbjit Singh and Se Na Lee each bought a Hotel Unit in the Trump International Hotel, a five-star building to be built in Toronto’s financial district. Mr. Singh and Mrs. Lee were both middle-class residents of the Greater Toronto Area and had no intention of occupying the Hotel Units themselves. Instead, they bought the units as investments, expecting that they would profit by participating in the hotel’s “Reservation Program”.
2. Mandel v Fakhim, 2016 ONSC 6538
 What does it say about what I told the jury and about the legitimacy of the jury’s role, if the judge may not only ignore their findings, but may make binding pronouncements that fly in the face of the jury’s findings? Facts cannot exist and not exist at the same time. The plaintiff’s injuries exist or they do not; they were caused by the motor vehicle collision or they were not. I am being invited to find that facts were proven at trial when the jury has already found that those facts were not proven. I cannot do that without undermining the role of the jury as the exclusive finders of fact. I cannot do that without making portions of the standard civil charge to the jury untrue. If a judge can find facts that are inconsistent with the jury’s findings and that have legal effect, what justification is there to summon people away from their lives to compel them to attend court? I am already being paid to do the same job anyway.
3. R v Sidhu, 2016 ABCA 321
 The defence trial strategy was also to suggest that this was an unreasonably clumsy way for the appellant to commit the offence. Knowing what he knew of search procedures at the Remand Centre, the defence argued that the appellant could have successfully smuggled the drugs into the Remand Centre in one of a number of different, better ways. By not doing so, the defence argued, it could be said the appellant clearly did not know what was in the envelope and was, therefore, simply an innocent blind drug mule and unknowing dupe. The trial judge did not accept this.
The most-consulted French-language decision Barreau du Québec (syndique adjointe) c. Mercure, 2016 QCCDBQ 79
 Dans ce même courriel du 7 juillet 2016, l’intimé admet qu’il n’est pas en mesure de produire un état de compte à sa cliente, qu’il ne détient plus l’argent dans son compte en fidéicommis, que sa comptabilité est à ce point en désordre qu’il a dû mandater une équipe externe pour la remettre en ordre et qu’il devra procéder à un transfert personnel de fonds provenant de l’extérieur pour la rembourser, tout en précisant que cela serait terminé dans les 14 jours.
* 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.