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. Attorney General for Ontario v. Persons Unknown, 2020 ONSC 6974 (CanLII)
 In my view, the “Persons Unknown” format does not allow the Attorney General to seek ex parte interpretations of laws to restrict unnamed respondents from suing others in future. Neither is it appropriate for the Attorney General to seek this court’s legal opinion on a hypothetical question of interpretation. Both engage the court in acting for the executive branch in a manner that in my view is constitutionally inappropriate.
2. Dhillon v. PM Management Systems Inc., 2014 ONSC 5407
 When an uncontemplated event or circumstance occurs after the signing of a contract that without default of either party makes the performance of the contract impossible or would make performance a radically different thing than what was promised or intended by the parties or that strikes at the root of the agreement, both parties may be discharged from further performance and moneys paid may be restored to the party who paid them…
3. Tokio Marine & Nichido Insurance Company v Security National Insurance Company, 2020 ABCA 402 (CanLII)
 While it is obvious that section 596(4) of the Insurance Act compels the conclusion that the Lieutenant Governor in Council has the authority to pass a regulation bestowing the benefits of a priority flip on car rental companies – businesses that rent automobiles to the public – section 596(4) does not preclude the cabinet from assisting a business that, in the ordinary course of business, leases cars but not to the public. Had the Legislative Assembly of Alberta intended to limit the scope of potential beneficiaries to leasing car companies that lease cars to the public it could have easily said so.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Pharmaciens (Ordre professionnel des) c. Robert, 2020 QCCDPHA 44 (CanLII)
 Les moyens de défense d’erreur de fait ou de diligence raisonnable sont des moyens généralement associés aux infractions réglementaires dites de responsabilité stricte comme l’a décidé la Cour suprême du Canada et appliquée en droit disciplinaire par le Tribunal des professions.
 En matière de responsabilité stricte, la défense de diligence raisonnable est admissible. En droit disciplinaire, il incombe à l’intimé d’établir, selon la prépondérance des probabilités, qu’il a pris toutes les précautions raisonnables pour éviter l’événement en cause.
* 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.