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. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65
 This appeal and its companion cases (see Bell Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 66 (CanLII)), provide this Court with an opportunity to re-examine its approach to judicial review of administrative decisions.
 In these reasons, we will address two key aspects of the current administrative law jurisprudence which require reconsideration and clarification. First, we will chart a new course forward for determining the standard of review that applies when a court reviews the merits of an administrative decision. Second, we will provide additional guidance for reviewing courts to follow when conducting reasonableness review. The revised framework will continue to be guided by the principles underlying judicial review that this Court articulated in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 (CanLII),  1 S.C.R. 190: that judicial review functions to maintain the rule of law while giving effect to legislative intent. We will also affirm the need to develop and strengthen a culture of justification in administrative decision making.
2. Jonsson v Lymer, 2020 ABCA 167 (CanLII)
 While some may disagree with the need for “persistence”, that is the standard that has been selected by the Legislature. Persistence is important, because the more persistent the behaviour, the stronger is the inference that past behaviour predicts future behavior. The inherent jurisdiction of the court might still be invoked in exceptional circumstances, absent “persistence”, but the inherent jurisdiction of the court does not permit the complete abrogation of that requirement. As previously noted, access to the court has a constitutional dimension. Barring access to the court absent some actual pattern of abuse of that right is problematic. A single procedural misstep by a litigant calls for a single and focused remedy, not a blanket vexatious litigant order: Olumide at para. 24.
3. Ontario Nurses Association v. Eatonville/Henley Place, 2020 ONSC 2467 (CanLII)
 Accordingly, all three steps in the test for injunctive relief have been met. Nurses are not to be impeded in making an assessment and determination at point of care as to what PPE or other measures are appropriate and required under the circumstances. That assessment and determination is to be made on the basis of their professional judgment, taking into account the immediate situation as well as relevant longer and shorter-term considerations.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Snooks c. Procureur général du Canada, 2020 QCCA 586 (CanLII)
 Force est de constater que la décision de transfèrement non sollicité est considérée comme une décision administrative de nature civile. Elle est essentiellement liée à la gestion du risque présenté par les détenus et vise le maintien de l’ordre au sein de l’établissement. La décision ne concerne pas la déclaration de leur culpabilité ou l’infliction d’une peine en découlant, pas plus qu’elle ne remet en question leur innocence. Cette demande d’habeas corpus n’est pas davantage introduite par une personne détenue « du fait qu’elle est accusée ou qu’elle a été déclarée coupable d’une infraction », comme le prévoit l’article 775 C.cr.
 Les demandes d’habeas corpus découlant de la décision de transfèrement non sollicité sont donc assujetties à la procédure civile et non à la procédure criminelle.
* 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.