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. Sandhu v Siri Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara of Alberta, 2020 ABQB 359 (CanLII)
 The applicant contests his ouster as president of the respondent organization. He applied, unsuccessfully, for an interim injunction reinstating him. As part of the “no injunction” order, I directed the parties to attempt to draw up the procedural roadmap for the reinstatement litigation, which they were unable to do.
 The primary sticking point is whether cross-examinations on affidavits should be deferred until the all-clear has been sounded about Covid-19, versus being conducted, by video-conference, before then, if applicable Covid-19 restrictions remain in place at the material times.
2. Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie‑Britannique v. British Columbia, 2020 SCC 13 (CanLII)
 A school is much more than just a place to pass on theoretical and practical knowledge. It is also a setting for socialization where students can converse with one another and develop their potential in their own language and, in using it, familiarize themselves with their culture. That is the spirit in which the right to receive instruction in one of Canada’s official languages was elevated to constitutional status by means of s. 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”).
 This appeal concerns the scope of s. 23 and the interplay between that section and s. 1, as well as between it and the remedial provisions of Canada’s Constitution. The appeal affords an opportunity to identify the approach to be taken in order to determine the level of services that is guaranteed to rights holder parents on the basis of a given number of students, consider the test to be applied in order to determine whether the educational experience of the children of those rights holders is equivalent to the experience provided to the majority, discuss the justification under s. 1 of infringements of language rights, and decide whether damages can be awarded as a remedy in the event of an infringement.
3. Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),  2 SCR 817, 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC)
1 L’Heureux-Dubé J. — Regulations made pursuant to s. 114(2) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, empower the respondent Minister to facilitate the admission to Canada of a person where the Minister is satisfied, owing to humanitarian and compassionate considerations, that admission should be facilitated or an exemption from the regulations made under the Act should be granted. At the centre of this appeal is the approach to be taken by a court to judicial review of such decisions, both on procedural and substantive grounds. It also raises issues of reasonable apprehension of bias, the provision of written reasons as part of the duty of fairness, and the role of children’s interests in reviewing decisions made pursuant to s. 114(2).
The most-consulted French-language decision was Ville de Montréal c. Charles, 2020 QCCM 70 (CanLII)
 De plus, il faut faire une distinction entre la fuite et l’évitement. Bien qu’il soit logique de penser qu’une personne qui fuit la police doit avoir quelque chose à se reprocher, il n’est pas logique de tirer la même inférence d’une personne qui évite la police. Il peut y avoir bien des raisons pour vouloir éviter la police. La crainte de faire l’objet d’une vérification sans motif en est une. Les expériences passées de cette nature vécues par M. Charles pouvaient raisonnablement l’inciter à éviter la police pour ne pas faire l’objet d’une nouvelle vérification sans motif.
 Souscrire au raisonnement de l’agent Pigeon risquerait de créer un cercle vicieux. Plus une personne ferait l’objet de vérifications sans motif, plus elle voudrait éviter la police. Plus elle éviterait la police, plus elle deviendrait suspecte, ce qui entraînerait davantage de vérifications.
* 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.