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. Montgomery v. Van, 2009 ONCA 808
 The appellant tenant commenced an action against a respondent landlord for damages after slipping and falling on the premises. In her claim, the tenant pleads that on January 30, 2003 she slipped on ice on the walkway leading to her basement apartment and suffered injury. In his defence the landlord pleads that the Conditions of Lease (the tenancy agreement between the parties dated July 7, 2002), provides that: “Tenants are responsible for keeping their walkway and stairway clean (including snow removal).” Based on this provision, he pleads further that the tenant’s injury was due to her own negligence in that “she failed to keep her walkway in a state of good repair, including free from snow and ice”.
2. Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd.,  1 SCR 1186, 1988 CanLII 45
1. Wilson J.‑‑The principal issue in this appeal is whether the ski resort had a positive duty at law to take certain steps to prevent a visibly intoxicated person from competing in the resort’s dangerous “tubing” competition. The resort contends that it had no such duty but, if it did, it adequately discharged it. The appellant Crocker contends that it had such a duty and failed to discharge it.
3. Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9
 This appeal calls on the Court to consider, once again, the troubling question of the approach to be taken in judicial review of decisions of administrative tribunals. The recent history of judicial review in Canada has been marked by ebbs and flows of deference, confounding tests and new words for old problems, but no solutions that provide real guidance for litigants, counsel, administrative decision makers or judicial review judges. The time has arrived for a reassessment of the question.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Sorel-Tracy (Ville de) c. St-Sauveur, 2007 QCCS 3295
 Se représentant sans avocat, le propriétaire de l’immeuble, monsieur Gaétan St-Sauveur convient que le cabanon et le garage soient démolis, même si non dangereux, car « ils sont un négatif pour un acheteur ». Par contre, il s’oppose à la démolition du bâtiment résidentiel, parce que les voisins le surveillent et qu’il n’est pas dangereux. Il sollicite surtout un ultime délai pour trouver un acheteur qui lui éviterait de « tout perdre ».
* 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.