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. Yashcheshen v University of Saskatchewan, 2019 SKCA 67
 Accordingly, in order to determine if the Charter applies to the College’s LSAT policy, it is necessary to begin by asking whether the University is “government” by virtue of its nature. The answer to that question is clear. Numerous cases have found that universities are not “government” in this sense. See, most significantly: McKinney v University of Guelph, 1990 CanLII 60 (SCC),  3 SCR 229 at 270–271.
 The next question is whether the University is “government” because the government proper exercises substantial control over it. The answer to that question is also clear. By virtue of s. 3 of The University of Saskatchewan Act, 1995, SS 1995, c U-6.1, the University is an “autonomous corporation” and, as per s. 6(1) of that same Act, it has the “exclusive power” to, among other things, “formulate and implement its academic and research programs, policies and standards” and “formulate and implement its standards for admission and graduation”. While the University is financed in part by public funds, it is managed by and through its Senate, Board of Governors, and Council. The members of those bodies are not appointed by the government and there is nothing before the Court to suggest that, in some other way, the government exercises control over the University or the College.
2. Glavine v Biletsky, 2019 ABCA 291
 If any authority is required for what appears to be an incontrovertible proposition of law, namely that a creditor can only execute against his or her debtor’s interest in jointly-owned property, provisions in the Civil Enforcement Act suggest that writs filed by enforcement creditors against jointly-owned properties bind only the enforcement debtor’s exigible interest in the land (s. 33(2) of the Civil Enforcement Act). In other words, prior to any sale, judicial or otherwise, while the land is held in joint tenancy, the enforcement creditor’s writ attaches only to his or her debtor’s interest in the land, less the value of any exemptions.
3. R v Sohal, 2019 ABCA 293
 It has also long been recognized that provincial and federal licence suspensions can overlap, and to some extent contradict each other. Provincially imposed licence suspensions may be longer or shorter than the driving prohibitions imposed by the Criminal Code arising out of the same facts. Sometimes the accused will be entitled to drive under one regime, but not under the other. In these circumstances, the law is clear that the accused must comply with both regimes, except in the rare circumstances where compliance with provincial legislation would undermine the very purpose of the federal legislation: Chatterjee v Ontario (Attorney General), 2009 SCC 19 (CanLII) at para. 11,  1 SCR 624. To a considerable extent, however, it has repeatedly been found that the provincial and federal regimes can operate together: Sahaluk at paras. 72-4.
The most-consulted French-language decision was 9085-4886 Québec inc. c. Bank of Montreal, 2019 QCCA 1301
 Tenant les faits allégués pour avérés comme il se doit, et sans pouvoir exclure à ce stade que les banques émettrices puissent offrir une garantie de paiement aux commerçants, se pose donc la question de savoir si les banques intimées ont comploté entre elles pour fixer les frais d’interchange facturés aux commerçants en échange de ce service. C’est ce qu’allègue l’appelante, mais que contestent les intimées en faisant valoir qu’elles ne peuvent avoir ainsi comploté parce que ce sont les acquéreurs, en vertu d’un contrat de service avec les commerçants, qui fixent et leur facturent les frais d’interchange.
* 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.