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. Persampieri v. Hobbs, 2018 ONSC 368
 Counsel for the Defendants submitted that since the net award was less than $25,000, and as the Plaintiff’s action was commenced and continued under the ordinary procedure, the Plaintiff should in effect be penalized in costs for failing to bring her action in the Small Claims Court or under the Simplified Procedure.
 More importantly given the issues in this case and the evidence needed to meet the defences mounted by the Defendants, and given their challenge of the credibility of the Plaintiff, use of the Small Claims Court Procedure or the procedures under the Simplified Rules would not have been practicable.
2. R v Quartey, 2018 ABCA 12
 The appellant submits that the trial judge applied stereotypical myths when he rejected aspects of his evidence as “fanciful” and “unbelievable”. We have had the benefit of reviewing the dissenting reasons of our colleague in draft form and agree that it is inappropriate for a court to apply or rely on generalizations or stereotypes about sexual behavior whether assessing the conduct of an accused person or a complainant. However, in our view, the trial judge did not do so when he rejected the evidence of the appellant. When the trial reasons are reviewed in their entirety, it is apparent that the trial judge was not suggesting that it was “unbelievable” that a man would be less interested in engaging in sex than a woman but rather that he found it unbelievable in view of all of the evidence that the appellant was not interested in engaging in sex with the complainant.
3. Delta Air Lines Inc. v. Lukács, 2018 SCC 2
 The respondent, Dr. Gábor Lukács, filed a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency (“Agency”), alleging that the appellant, Delta Air Lines Inc. (“Delta”), applied discriminatory practices governing the carriage of obese persons. The Agency dismissed this complaint on the basis that Dr. Lukács failed to meet the tests for private interest standing and public interest standing as developed by and for courts of civil jurisdiction.
 The question is whether the Agency’s decision was reasonable. I conclude that it was not. I would remit the matter to the Agency to reconsider whether to hear the complaint.
The most-consulted French-language decision was El-Ferekh c. Intact, compagnie d’assurances, 2017 QCCS 4077
 Intact allègue l’omission de l’assuré de déclarer plusieurs circonstances qui ont aggravé le risque pendant la période de couverture : des activités criminelles, à savoir la culture de cannabis dans l’un des bâtiments de l’Immeuble, des interventions policières, une altération du système électrique, un défaut d’alimenter la propriété en électricité, une situation de vacance de l’Immeuble.
* 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.