401:"To find the CRT’s interpretation patently unreasonable, there must be an immediately obvious defect – suggesting that there can only be one reasonable interpretation of the Second Resolution. This is not the case. Another reasonable interpretation could be that the special levy is due and payable on May 1, 2021, per the underlined phrase. It is also necessary to consider the context in which the Second Resolution was made. Even if the words were clear, a resolution cannot have an unlawful effect. It would be unlawful to allow for the Second Resolution to retroactively apply to Mr. Day – a former owner who did not have an opportunity to participate in discussions relating to the special levy purportedly established by the First Resolution – because such an interpretation contravenes the Ministerial Order."
387:, 1 S.C.R. 487, 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 was 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.
538:
544:
364:, and patent unreasonableness. Although the term "patent unreasonableness" lacked a precise definition in the common law, it was somewhere above unreasonableness, and consequently it was relatively difficult to show that a decision was patently unreasonable. A simple example of a patently unreasonable decision may be one that does not accord at all with the facts or law before it, or one that completely misstates a legal test.
390:
When the reviewing court reviews the evidence that was before the original decision maker, 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).
383:
404:"Even if the court considers parts of the tribunal’s rationale to be flawed or unreasonable, so long as the decision as a whole is reasonable, no patent unreasonableness can be found."
147:
479:
434:
323:
463:
606:
587:
17:
611:
621:
241:
417:
316:
253:
236:
441:
231:
276:
580:
221:
281:
626:
422:
357:
309:
271:
226:
195:
483:
429:
480:"Supreme Court of Canada - Decisions - Toronto (City) Board of Education v. O.S.S.T.F., District 15"
573:
373:
246:
368:
561:
460:
157:
152:
61:
184:
56:
616:
51:
8:
177:
107:
349:
297:
162:
37:
361:
189:
81:
467:
367:
By a decision issued on March 7, 2008, this test was removed from the law by the
353:
167:
138:
71:
557:
66:
600:
94:
76:
517:
The Owners, Strata Plan VR320 v Day, 2023 BCSC 364 (CanLII), at par. 20 <
553:
537:
337:
113:
413:
360:
decisions. It was the highest of three standards of review: correctness,
172:
127:
121:
87:
101:
504:
The Owners, Strata Plan VR320 v Day, 2023 BCSC 364 (CanLII), <
398:
at paras. 70-71 the
Supreme Court of British Columbia clarified:
461:
Supreme Court of Canada - Decisions - Dunsmuir v. New
Brunswick
518:
505:
384:
Toronto (City) Board of
Education v. O.S.S.T.F., District 15
396:The Owners, Strata Plan VR320 v Day, 2023 BCSC 364
598:
581:
317:
588:
574:
324:
310:
14:
599:
428:, the analogous standard of review in
416:, the analogous standard of review in
376:as represented by Board of Management
531:
24:
25:
638:
607:2008 disestablishments in Canada
542:
536:
418:United States administrative law
352:used by a court when performing
511:
498:
472:
454:
27:Former Canadian legal doctrine
13:
1:
521:>, retrieved on 2023-03-26
508:>, retrieved on 2023-03-17
447:
560:. You can help Knowledge by
442:Singapore administrative law
346:patent unreasonableness test
7:
612:Canadian administrative law
407:
10:
643:
530:
430:English administrative law
622:2008 in Canadian case law
519:https://canlii.ca/t/jw4w0
506:https://canlii.ca/t/jw4w0
374:Dunsmuir v New Brunswick
214:common law jurisdictions
369:Supreme Court of Canada
264:civil law jurisdictions
202:Patent unreasonableness
148:Fettering of discretion
18:Patent unreasonableness
158:Nondelegation doctrine
153:Legitimate expectation
62:Exhaustion of remedies
394:In a recent decision
342:patently unreasonable
262:Administrative law in
212:Administrative law in
57:Delegated legislation
52:Administrative court
552:This article about
178:Fundamental justice
627:Canadian law stubs
466:2008-03-20 at the
350:standard of review
298:Constitutional law
163:Procedural justice
44:General principles
38:Administrative law
569:
568:
334:
333:
16:(Redirected from
634:
590:
583:
576:
548:
547:
546:
545:
540:
532:
522:
515:
509:
502:
496:
495:
493:
491:
482:. Archived from
476:
470:
458:
438:unreasonableness
426:unreasonableness
362:unreasonableness
326:
319:
312:
190:Unreasonableness
82:Prerogative writ
34:
33:
21:
642:
641:
637:
636:
635:
633:
632:
631:
597:
596:
595:
594:
543:
541:
535:
528:
526:
525:
516:
512:
503:
499:
489:
487:
486:on June 2, 2008
478:
477:
473:
468:Wayback Machine
459:
455:
450:
410:
354:judicial review
330:
263:
213:
185:Proportionality
168:Natural justice
139:judicial review
72:Ministerial act
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
640:
630:
629:
624:
619:
614:
609:
593:
592:
585:
578:
570:
567:
566:
549:
524:
523:
510:
497:
471:
452:
451:
449:
446:
445:
444:
432:
420:
409:
406:
358:administrative
332:
331:
329:
328:
321:
314:
306:
303:
302:
301:
300:
292:
291:
290:Related topics
287:
286:
285:
284:
279:
274:
266:
265:
259:
258:
257:
256:
251:
250:
249:
242:United Kingdom
239:
234:
229:
224:
216:
215:
209:
208:
207:
206:
205:
204:
199:
187:
182:
181:
180:
175:
170:
160:
155:
150:
142:
141:
134:
133:
132:
131:
124:
119:
118:
117:
110:
105:
98:
91:
79:
74:
69:
67:Justiciability
64:
59:
54:
46:
45:
41:
40:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
639:
628:
625:
623:
620:
618:
615:
613:
610:
608:
605:
604:
602:
591:
586:
584:
579:
577:
572:
571:
565:
563:
559:
555:
550:
539:
534:
533:
529:
520:
514:
507:
501:
485:
481:
475:
469:
465:
462:
457:
453:
443:
439:
437:
433:
431:
427:
425:
421:
419:
415:
412:
411:
405:
402:
399:
397:
392:
388:
386:
385:
379:
377:
375:
370:
365:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
327:
322:
320:
315:
313:
308:
307:
305:
304:
299:
296:
295:
294:
293:
289:
288:
283:
280:
278:
275:
273:
270:
269:
268:
267:
261:
260:
255:
254:United States
252:
248:
245:
244:
243:
240:
238:
235:
233:
230:
228:
225:
223:
220:
219:
218:
217:
211:
210:
203:
200:
198:
197:
193:
192:
191:
188:
186:
183:
179:
176:
174:
171:
169:
166:
165:
164:
161:
159:
156:
154:
151:
149:
146:
145:
144:
143:
140:
136:
135:
130:
129:
125:
123:
120:
116:
115:
111:
109:
106:
104:
103:
99:
97:
96:
95:Habeas corpus
92:
90:
89:
85:
84:
83:
80:
78:
77:Ouster clause
75:
73:
70:
68:
65:
63:
60:
58:
55:
53:
50:
49:
48:
47:
43:
42:
39:
36:
35:
32:
30:
19:
562:expanding it
554:Canadian law
551:
527:
513:
500:
488:. Retrieved
484:the original
474:
456:
435:
423:
403:
400:
395:
393:
389:
382:
380:
372:
366:
345:
341:
338:Canadian law
335:
237:South Africa
201:
194:
137:Grounds for
126:
114:Quo warranto
112:
100:
93:
86:
31:
29:
617:Legal tests
414:Due process
173:Due process
128:Ultra vires
108:Prohibition
601:Categories
448:References
436:Wednesbury
424:Wednesbury
196:Wednesbury
122:Rulemaking
88:Certiorari
232:Singapore
222:Australia
490:June 15,
464:Archived
408:See also
277:Mongolia
247:Scotland
102:Mandamus
344:or the
282:Ukraine
348:was a
227:Canada
556:is a
272:China
558:stub
492:2007
440:in
381:In
371:in
356:of
336:In
603::
378:.
340:,
589:e
582:t
575:v
564:.
494:.
325:e
318:t
311:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.