The Nuremberg principles are a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The document was created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations to codify the legal principles underlying the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.
In Canadian law, patently unreasonable or the patent unreasonableness test was a standard of review used by a court when performing judicial review of administrative decisions. It was the highest of three standards of review: correctness, unreasonableness, 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 is 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.
Harvard College v Canada is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case concerning the patentability of higher life forms within the context of the Patent Act. At issue was the patentability of the Harvard oncomouse, a mouse that had its genome genetically altered by a cancer-promoting gene (oncogene). In a 5-4 split, the Supreme Court held that the oncomouse and higher life forms in general are not patentable subject matter in Canada.
In law, the standard of review is the amount of deference given by one court in reviewing a decision of a lower court or tribunal. A low standard of review means that the decision under review will be varied or overturned if the reviewing court considers there is any error at all in the lower court's decision. A high standard of review means that deference is accorded to the decision under review, so that it will not be disturbed just because the reviewing court might have decided the matter differently; it will be varied only if the higher court considers the decision to have obvious error. The standard of review may be set by statute or precedent. In the United States, "standard of review" also has a separate meaning concerning the level of deference the judiciary gives to Congress when ruling on the constitutionality of legislation.
Cuddy Chicks Ltd v Ontario , [1991] 2 SCR 5 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the jurisdiction tribunals to hear constitutional challenges of the tribunal's enabling statute.
Baker v Canada , [1999] 2 SCR 817 is a leading Canadian administrative law decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court provided guidance on the standard of judicial review of administrative decisions. The issue was what standard of procedural fairness should be applied when considering the judicial review of the waiver of the requirement that applications for permanent residence be filed from abroad. The case also clarified the need for written reasons in some administrative decisions.
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v New Brunswick Liquor Corp, [1979] 2 SCR 227 is a leading case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. This case first developed the patent unreasonableness standard of review in Canadian administrative law.
Canadian administrative law is the body of law that addresses the actions and operations of governments and governmental agencies in Canada. That is, the law concerns the manner in which courts can review the decisions of administrative decision-makers (ADMs) such as a board, tribunal, commission, agency or Crown minister, when he or she exercises ministerial discretion.
Canadian Broadcasting Corp v Canada , [1995] 1 S.C.R. 157 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial review. The decision affirms the "pragmatic and functional approach" to labour relations and rules that the standard of review for interpreting external legislation should usually be one of correctness.
Union des Employes de Service, Local 298 v Bibeault, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial review in Canadian administrative law. In this decision the court first described the "pragmatic and functional approach" to determining the standard of review for an administrative decision and provided reasons for its desirability.
During the Iraq War, which began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there were United States military personnel who refused to participate, or continue to participate, in that specific war. Their refusal meant that they faced the possibility of punishment in the United States according to Article 85 of the US Uniform Code of Military Justice. For that reason some of them chose to go to Canada as a place of refuge. The choice of these US Iraq War resisters to go to Canada has led to considerable debate in Canada's society, press, legal arenas, and political arenas. Much of the debate on this issue has been due to the controversial nature of the Iraq War itself. Among the many elements of that debate are Canada's relationship to the Iraq War, and Canada's relationship to the US, its largest trading partner.
Dunsmuir v New Brunswick2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 SCR 190 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the topic of substantive review and standards of review. The decision is notable for combining the reasonableness (simpliciter) and patent unreasonableness standards of review into a single reasonableness standard.
Canada v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canadian administrative law.
Administrative law in Singapore is a branch of public law that is concerned with the control of governmental powers as exercised through its various administrative agencies. Administrative law requires administrators – ministers, civil servants and public authorities – to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the law. Singapore administrative law is largely based on English administrative law, which the nation inherited at independence in 1965.
Newfoundland Telephone Co v Newfoundland , [1992] 1 SCR 623 is a Canadian administrative law case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the reasonable apprehension of bias.
Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario , 2003 SCC 29, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on arbitration and bias in administrative law. The Court held that it was patently unreasonable for the Minister of Labour to appoint retired judges as arbitrators in labour disputes without considering their expertise in labour relations under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitrations Act.
Refugee health care is the provision of health services to refugees and refugee claimants. As early as 2009, health researchers identified particular medical needs and health vulnerabilities amongst these populations. Compared to other immigrants, they report more physical, emotional, and dental problems and, compared to those born in Canada, they have higher rates of infections and chronic diseases that are both treatable and preventable.
Canadian National Railway Co v Canada (AG)2014 SCC 40 is a significant case from the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of Canadian administrative law, focusing on whether the standard of review framework set out in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick applies to decisions of the Governor in Council of Canada, and whether it has authority to vary or rescind an administrative tribunal decision on questions of law or jurisdiction.
In Canada, judicial review is the process that allows courts to supervise administrative tribunals' exercise of their statutory powers. Judicial review of administrative action is only available for decisions made by a governmental or quasi-governmental authority. The process allows individuals to challenge state actions, and ensures that decisions made by administrative tribunals follow the rule of law. The practice is meant to ensure that powers delegated by government to boards and tribunals are not abused, and offers legal recourse when that power is misused, or the law is misapplied. Judicial review is meant to be a last resort for those seeking to redress a decision of an administrative decision maker.
The idea of ministerial discretion, when employed in Canadian statute law, means the power of a Crown minister to vary or alter the decisions of his bureaucrats, one of his Committees, or one of his Boards. The idea derives from the laws of the United Kingdom, of which Canada, under the rubric of British North America, once was part. The term needs to be written into the statute, as for example in section 51 of the Canadian Oil and Gas Operations Act:
The Governor in Council may at any time, in his discretion, either on petition of any interested person or of his own motion, vary or rescind any decision or order of the Committee made under this Act, whether the order is made between parties or otherwise and any order that the Governor in Council makes with respect thereto becomes a decision or order of the Committee and, subject to section 52, is binding on the Committee and on all parties.
