Information AboutPatently Unreasonable |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT PATENTLY UNREASONABLE | |
| canadian law | |
| administrative law | |
|
In '' Toronto (City) Board Of Education V. O.S.S.T.F., District 15 '', 1 S.C.R. 487,[http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1997/1997rcs1-487/1997rcs1-487.html at paras. 41-48, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada noted that the test for whether a decision under review is patently unreasonable is articulated differently for findings of fact and findings of law. For interpreting a legislative provision, the test is whether the decision under review "cannot be rationally supported by the relevant legislation and demands intervention by the court upon review". In the context of a decision interpreting a collective labour agreement, the patently-unreasonable test was held to mean that the court will not intervene unless the words of the collective agreement have been given an interpretation they cannot reasonably bear. When the reviewing court reviews the evidence that was before the original decisionmaker, on a question where the standard of review is patent unreasonableness, the reviewing court must determine whether "the evidence reasonably viewed is incapable of supporting the tribunal's findings" (para. 48). In theory, according to the Supreme Court Of Canada in '' Baker V. Canada (Minister Of Citizenship & Immigration) '', this standard of review could also apply in a statutory appeal. In practice, this is highly unlikely, since the existence of a right of appeal often determines the standard of review to be correctness or unreasonableness. Compare this to Due Process in U.S. Law and Wednesbury Unreasonableness in English Law . |
|
|