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. R. v. J.R., 2020 ONSC 1938 (CanLII)
 The tertiary ground is conceptually distinct from the primary and secondary grounds. The latter relate to an assessment of the probability that the accused will behave in a certain way, that is, fail to attend court or commit further offences. The tertiary ground is not concerned with predictions about the accused’s behaviour but, rather, with public perception. Having proper regard for the views of reasonable members of the public while disregarding views that may be based on purely emotional reactions or misunderstandings is not an easy task: St. Cloud, at para. 81. Furthermore, there is not necessarily a direct correlation between detention and the maintenance of public confidence. In some cases, detaining an accused without justification will undermine public confidence: St. Cloud, at para. 86.
2. Girao v. Cunningham, 2020 ONCA 260 (CanLII)
 While I recognize that the right to a jury trial in a civil action has been recognized as fundamental, it is not absolute and must sometimes yield to practicality. I should not be understood as stating that the presence of a self-represented litigant should invariably lead to the dismissal of a civil jury. In many if not most cases, a trial judge should be able to fairly manage a civil jury trial with a self-represented litigant, with the willing assistance of counsel acting in the best traditions of officers of the court.
3. Stewart v. Toronto (Police Services Board), 2020 ONCA 255 (CanLII)
 I accept this submission in principle. The freedom to engage in the peaceful public expression of political views is central to our conception of a free and democratic society. Freedom of expression requires zealous protection. The police infringed Mr. Stewart’s freedom of expression without lawful justification and violated his rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, as well as from arbitrary detention. It does not follow, however, that a large award of damages is required. As I will explain, in all of the circumstances of this case, a modest award of damages would be just and appropriate to affirm the constitutional value of freedom of expression, together with s. 8 and 9 Charter rights, and serve the deterrence function of Charter damages.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Primeau c. Hooper, 2020 QCCA 576 (CanLII)
 Même en tenant pour acquis que l’article 2630 C.c.Q. s’applique aux contrats de jeu non valables selon l’article 2629 C.c.Q., sans en décider, les paiements allégués seraient l’hypothèque et des « IOU ». Or, une hypothèque garantit l’exécution d’une obligation (art. 2661 C.c.Q.), mais n’est pas elle-même l’exécution de l’obligation. De plus, la remise d’« IOU » n’est pas prouvée. Le seul « IOU » qui est produit au dossier de la Cour (qui aurait d’ailleurs été remis pour une autre dette entre les parties) est simplement une reconnaissance de dette et non un paiement. Il est clair qu’aucun paiement n’est prouvé.
 L’appelant plaide aussi que les reconnaissances de dette incluses à l’hypothèque, la convention spéciale et les « IOU » ont eu pour effet de nover l’obligation non exécutoire en obligation exécutoire.
* 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.