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. Gichuru v. Vancouver Swing Society (No. 3), 2020 BCHRT 1 (CanLII)
 The Tribunal has rarely had to consider the issue of vexatious litigants in the context of its own decisions, and the VSS was unable to identify any decisions in which an award was made against a party to a complaint on the basis of a pattern of vexatious litigation.
 The Tribunal is the master of its own process and has the power under s. 27.3 of the Code to make rules and orders to facilitate just and timely resolution of complaints.
2. Willms v. Willms, 2020 BCCA 51 (CanLII)
 In my view, while the reasons for judgment in this case might have more amply addressed the arguments made in chambers, they are sufficient to permit appellate review, particularly in light of the exchanges between counsel and the judge during the course of submissions. The judge can certainly not be faulted for failing to address arguments not made, in particular the argument the case was unsuitable for resolution in a summary fashion, the argument the tax consequences of the award for retroactive spousal support were not considered and the argument the award should not be retroactive at all. While in circumstances such as those discussed in R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, inadequate reasons may undermine a judgment, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which an apprehension of bias might arise as a result of some inadequacy in the reasons. In any event, this is not such a case.
3. 1062484 Ontario Inc. v. Williams McEnery, 2020 ONSC 825 (CanLII)
 The fact that parties hold themselves out as partners may be evidence of their intention to carry on business in common under a partnership, but this alone would not have the effect of validating the existence of a partnership (Continental Bank, at para. 36). A court may find the existence of a partnership, notwithstanding express statements between the partners to the contrary, on the basis of the partnership’s dealings with third parties, but only if other partnership indicia are present (Elbow River, at para. 86, citing Alison R. Manzer, A Practical Guide to Canadian Partnership Law, loose-leaf (Aurora, Ont.: Canada Law Book, 1994- (October 2011 release consulted) at para. 2.340).
The most-consulted French-language decision was Pharmaciens (Ordre professionnel des) c. Nammour, 2020 QCCDPHA 4 (CanLII)
 Toutefois, à la lumière des enseignements de la Cour suprême, des arrêts de la Cour d’appel, notamment l’affaire Binet, et des jugements du Tribunal des professions, le Conseil n’a pas à rechercher si la recommandation conjointe apparaît déraisonnable et la comparer avec ce qu’il pourrait considérer approprié à la lumière des précédents. Il n’a pas davantage à rechercher si les périodes de radiation proposées sont trop sévères ou trop clémentes. Il doit plutôt rechercher si cette recommandation est contraire à l’intérêt public ou déconsidère l’administration de la justice.
* 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.