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. Moncur v. Plante, 2020 ONSC 4391 (CanLII)
 Of concern for the court was the lack of information in relation to Mr. Moncur’s sister and niece and their social contacts. The court had no ability to assess the extent of that family’s social circle. According to the provincial guidelines, each person can only belong to one social circle. So, if a person is invited to join a social circle, their social contacts must also be considered.
 Moreover, it does not appear that consideration was given to the social circling directive from the province that separated spouses with children moving between their two homes must include each other in their respective household bubbles before expanding it. Here, this means that Ms. Plante is part of Mr. Moncur’s social circle and he is part of hers. Ms. Moncur did not consent to be a part of the larger circle proposed by Mr. Moncur. I find nothing unreasonable about her decision to withhold agreement.
2. Hengyun International Investment Commerce Inc. c. 9368-7614 Québec inc., 2020 QCCS 2251 (CanLII)
 The lessor’s obligation to provide peaceable enjoyment is an obligation of result; it can only be relieved of this obligation in the event of superior force (force majeure) or the fault of someone beyond its control.
 When a lessor fails to perform an obligation owing under the lease, including the obligation to provide peaceable enjoyment, a tenant can claim a reduction in rent. A tenant may also sue a lessor in damages. Although a claim in damages is separate and distinct from a request for reduction in rent, it can be exercised at the same time, which is what Quebec Inc. has done in the present case.
3. Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FC 770 (CanLII)
 The Applicants have provided significant evidence of the risks and challenges faced by STCA ineligible claimants when they are returned to the US. Although the US system has been subject to much debate and criticism, a comparison of the two systems is not the role of this Court, nor is it the role of this Court to pass judgment on the US asylum system. The narrow focus here is the consequences that flow when a refugee claimant is returned to the US by operation of the STCA. The evidence establishes that the conduct of Canadian officials in applying the provisions of the STCA will provoke certain, and known, reactions by US officials. In my view, the risk of detention for the sake of “administrative” compliance with the provisions of the STCA cannot be justified. Canada cannot turn a blind eye to the consequences that befell Ms. Mustefa in its efforts to adhere to the STCA. The evidence clearly demonstrates that those returned to the US by Canadian officials are detained as a penalty.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Séquestre de Media5 Corporation, 2020 QCCA 943 (CanLII)
 Seule la personne, la société ou le fiduciaire qui exploite une entreprise peut consentir une hypothèque sur une universalité de biens, meubles ou immeubles, présents ou à venir, corporels ou incorporels. C’est ainsi que seul celui qui exploite une entreprise peut hypothéquer l’outillage ou le matériel professionnel, les créances et comptes clients, les brevets et marques de commerce de l’entreprise, ou encore les meubles corporels qui font partie de l’actif de l’entreprise et qui sont détenus afin d’être vendus, loués ou traités dans le processus de fabrication ou de transformation d’un bien destiné à la vente, à la location ou à la prestation de services. De plus, la personne, la société ou le fiduciaire qui exploite une entreprise peut consentir une hypothèque ouverte sur les biens de l’entreprise.
* 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.