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. Arconti v. Smith, 2020 ONSC 2782 (CanLII)
 In my view, the simplest answer to this issue is, “It’s 2020”. We no longer record evidence using quill and ink. In fact, we apparently do not even teach children to use cursive writing in all schools anymore. We now have the technological ability to communicate remotely effectively. Using it is more efficient and far less costly than personal attendance. We should not be going back.
 That is not to say that there are not legitimate issues that deserve consideration. Technology is a tool, not an answer. In this case, the parties cannot attend in the same location due to health concerns and governmental orders. So, the question is whether the tool of videoconference ought to be required to keep this matter moving or if the mini-trial ought to be delayed further due to the plaintiffs’ desire to conduct an examination for discovery in person.
2. Ontario (Ministry of Finance) v. 1375923 Ontario Inc., 2020 ONCJ 126 (CanLII)
 In this case, a conditional sentence is not an option. It is not provided for in the POA and thus not available. In my view, probation alone would be demonstrably unfit. It would send the wrong message to all residents of Ontario namely that one can fail to remit taxes in excess of $1,675,000.00 dollars as well as mischaracterize the nature of someone’s employment relationship so that the employer can gain an advantage and not suffer any serious consequences. That is not acceptable.
3. Alsawwah v. Afifi, 2020 ONSC 2883 (CanLII)
 Beyond the balance of those duties, many capable family law lawyers realize that if the cost of victory is too great, everyone loses. Those lawyers realize that their role as advocate should often be as rational counsel not flame-throwing propagandist. Where the client wants to raise the emotional stakes with invective and personal attack, that lawyer must often counsel restraint. While many lawyers who appear before this court recognize the truth of Mr. Nizer’s aphorism that began these reasons, all too many, unfortunately, fail to do so.
 In the hopes of lowering the rhetorical temperature of the future materials of these parties and perhaps those of others who will come before the court, I repeat these essential facts, often stated by my colleagues at all levels of court, but which bear constant repetition…
The most-consulted French-language decision was Zanjanis Group c. Waugh, 2020 QCRDL 5846 (CanLII)
 Quoi qu’il en soit, il revient au Tribunal de déterminer, à la lumière de la preuve soumise et du droit applicable, qui, de la locatrice ou de la locataire, doit assumer les risques associés au paiement du loyer par virement Interac.
 Le Tribunal aura donc à répondre à la question suivante : à quel moment et dans quelles circonstances un paiement par virement Interac est-il libératoire?
 D’entrée de jeu, il importe de rappeler qu’en vertu des articles 2803 et 2804 C.c.Q, il incombe à celui qui veut faire valoir un droit de prouver les faits au soutien de ses prétentions, et ce, de façon prépondérante.
* 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.