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. Gorham et al. v. Behm et al., 2020 ONSC 6469 (CanLII)
 I find on a balance of probabilities that the Defendants were motivated to express themselves with a view to communicating with a community they were part of in hopes of bringing about positive change to that community. Their motivation strikes me as reasonable and their communication was consistent with it. One could expect that a sports organization would welcome feedback from an athlete who chose to leave the sport because of dissatisfaction with the organization. The Defendants, in my judgment, were reasonably engaged in expression on a matter of public interest in all the circumstances.
2. R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 (CanLII),  2 SCR 353
 Mr. Grant appeals his convictions on a series of firearms offences, relating to a gun seized by police during an encounter on a Toronto sidewalk. The gun was entered as evidence against Mr. Grant and formed the basis of his convictions. The question on this appeal is whether that evidence was obtained in breach of Mr. Grant’s Charter rights, and if so, whether the evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
3. Stephens v MLT Aikins LLP, 2020 SKQB 266 (CanLII)
 Indeed, on a wider consideration of the allegations against each defendant, there is nothing that suggests any defendant was directly bound by the Charter (nature of the party) or engaged in an activity to which the Charter applies (nature of the activity). Against various defendants the statement of claim alleges breach of contract, mortgage fraud, forgery, fraudulent concealment, conspiracy, trespass, conversion, unjust enrichment, negligence, defamation and wrongful death. It is a difficult claim to follow but even allowing that it casts a wide net, the Charter would not appear to have been caught up in it.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Droit de la famille — 161738, 2016 QCCS 3357 (CanLII)
 Même si la révocation est empreinte de mauvaise foi, le donataire ne peut s’y opposer. La révocation est valide et ses effets sont immédiats. Tout au plus, le donataire pourrait demander des dommages au donateur s’il démontre que la révocation a été faite dans des circonstances préjudiciables ou blessantes.
* 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.