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. Elias Restaurant v. Keele Sheppard Plaza Inc., 2020 ONSC 5457 (CanLII)
 The Landlord’s counsel takes some umbrage at the allegation of racism against his clients, and submits that there is nothing in the record to establish that the Landlord or Manager were racially motivated. Motivation, however, is not the point here. Identifying a family-run restaurant as not family-friendly, and impugning a restaurant-bar for serving “liquor” and having smokers stand outside the premises, all point to a mindset that condemns the minority population for what is considered normal behaviour for the majority population. On this point, the Court of Appeal has observed that although racial stereotyping may not be conscious, it is nevertheless real: “For some people, anti-black biases rest on unstated and unchallenged assumptions learned over a lifetime. Those assumptions shape the daily behaviour of individuals, often without any conscious reference to them.”
2. Harvey v Saskatchewan Legal Aid Commission, 2020 SKCA 110 (CanLII)
 In this case, as in any other, the issue of interpretation is resolved by following the so‑called modern approach to statutory interpretation. The often-cited paragraph of Iacobucci J. describing this approach from Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC),  1 SCR 27 at para 27, has now been codified in Saskatchewan in The Legislation Act, SS 2019, c L-10.2 [Legislation Act]:
Acts and regulations remedial
2‑10(1)The words of an Act and regulations authorized pursuant to an Act are to be read in their entire context, and in their grammatical and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of the Legislature.
3. Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 (CanLII)
 In D.B.S. v. S.R.G.; L.J.W. v. T.A.R.; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, 2006 SCC 37,  2 S.C.R. 231, this Court interpreted s. 15.1 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), as precluding a court from granting an order on an original application for retroactive child support unless the child beneficiary is a “child of the marriage”, as defined in the Divorce Act, when the application is made. This appeal raises the issue of whether the court’s authority to grant an order under s. 152 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”), is similarly confined. More particularly, is it possible to vary a child support order under the FLA after the order has expired, and after the child support beneficiary ceases to be a “child” as defined in the FLA?
The most-consulted French-language decision was Srougi c. Coopérative de solidarité en édition Les Boucaniers et Boucanières, 2008 QCCQ 7693 (CanLII)
 En terminant, le Tribunal tient à exprimer les commentaires suivants. Pendant les trois jours du procès tenu en la présente instance, le Tribunal a pu constater qu’il existe un vif débat entre, d’un côté, les partisans(es) des droits des hommes ou des pères et, de l’autre, des droits des femmes sous tous leurs aspects, y compris celui d’atteindre un meilleur équilibre dans l’égalité des droits entre les hommes et les femmes. Le Tribunal déplore les excès de langage utilisés par certains ténors qui revendiquent de meilleurs droits pour les hommes et pour les pères et qu’il n’est pas utile de reproduire aux fins du présent jugement.
* 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.