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. Colistro v. Tbaytel, 2019 ONCA 197
 The requirement that the defendant have intended to produce the harm that occurred, or known that the harm was substantially certain to follow as a result of his or her conduct, is an important limiting element of the tort and distinguishes it from actions in negligence. It is now well established that a plaintiff can recover in negligence for psychological injury. A plaintiff seeking recovery in negligence for mental injury must show that: (1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant to avoid the kind of loss alleged; (2) the defendant breached that duty by failing to observe the applicable standard of care; (3) the claimant sustained damage; and (4) such damage was caused, in fact and in law, by the defendant’s breach: Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28 (CanLII),  1 S.C.R. 543, at para. 13; Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada, 2008 SCC 27 (CanLII),  2 S.C.R. 114, at paras. 8-9. Frequently, the issue will be whether it is reasonably foreseeable that a person of ordinary fortitude would suffer the mental injury incurred as a consequence of the defendant’s allegedly negligent behaviour. However, in Piresferreira, this court held, at paras. 50-63, that an employee cannot pursue a claim for negligent infliction of mental suffering in the employment context.
2. R. v. McColman, 2019 ONSC 5359
 In considering the aforementioned jurisprudence and the definitions of “driver” and “highway” under the Highway Traffic Act, I am of the view that under section 48 and 216 of the Highway Traffic Act the police do not have the statutory authority to stop drivers on private property unless they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the driver has committed an offence. For the learned trial judge to conclude otherwise, as set out in paragraphs 54, 55 and 56 of his reasons released December 19, 2017, constitutes a reversable error in law.
3. Giancola v. Dobrydnev, 2019 ONSC 5372
 Dealing first of all with any delay, I am satisfied that the Defendant has moved as quickly as the court schedule would allow him to have moved to set aside my judgment. There does not appear to be any evidence of any difficulty in re-litigating the issues raised by the summary judgment motion, and apart from the prejudice suffered by the Plaintiffs by reason of the delay in terms of being able to enforce the judgment as well as possible costs thrown away, I am not satisfied that there is any real evidence of prejudice to the Plaintiffs.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Langevin, 2012 QCCS 613
 Sylvio Langevin réclame la propriété de la planète Terre. Dans un autre dossier entrepris le même jour, il réclame celle des planètes Mercure, Vénus, Jupiter, Saturne et Uranus, ainsi que des quatre grosses lunes de Jupiter.
 À l’audience, le requérant souhaite amender ce second recours pour y ajouter ses revendications sur Neptune et Pluton, ainsi que sur l’espace entre chaque planète, à la grandeur de la galaxie.
* 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.