Patently unreasonable

Last updated

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 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.

By a decision issued on March 7, 2008, this test was removed from the law by the Supreme Court of Canada in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick as represented by Board of Management . [1]

In Toronto (City) Board of Education v. O.S.S.T.F., District 15 , [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487, [2] 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.

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).

In a recent decision The Owners, Strata Plan VR320 v Day, 2023 BCSC 364 [3] at paras. 70-71 the Supreme Court of British Columbia clarified:

"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."

"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." [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp</i> English legal case

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 is an English law case that sets out the standard of unreasonableness of public-body decisions that would make them liable to be quashed on judicial review, known as Wednesburyunreasonableness.

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.

In law, a test is a commonly applied method of evaluation used to resolve matters of jurisprudence. In the context of a trial, a hearing, discovery, or other kinds of legal proceedings, the resolution of certain questions of fact or law may hinge on the application of one or more legal tests.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian administrative law</span> Law governing the government agencies of Canada

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 such as a board, tribunal, commission, agency, or Crown minister, while exercising ministerial discretion.

Law Society of New Brunswick v Ryan, 2003 SCC 20 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial review for professional disciplinary bodies in Canadian administrative law. The Court determined that decisions of professional disciplinary committees are reviewed on a standard of reasonableness simpliciter.

Toronto (City) Board of Education v Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 15, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial review of administrative decisions. The Court held that the review of a just cause dismissal was patently unreasonable on the basis that the decision had no evidentiary basis.

National Corn Growers Assn v Canada (Import Tribunal), [1990] 2 SCR 1324 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial review and statutory interpretation.

In Canadian law, a reasonable apprehension of bias is a legal standard for disqualifying judges and administrative decision-makers for bias. Bias of the decision-maker can be real or merely perceived.

The Canadian Forces Drug Control Program is a series of regulations established in 1992 to prevent drug use among members of the Canadian Forces (CF), under the broad regulation-making auspices of section 12 of the National Defence Act (NDA). It prohibits CF members from involvement with most drugs, except alcohol and tobacco, purportedly to maintain discipline within the CF, ensure the safety, reliability or health of CF members. Chapter 20 of Queen's Regulations and Orders contains several schemes for drug-testing such as safety-sensitive testing, blind testing, and testing for suspicion under the article for "testing for cause." The regulation enforces administrative and disciplinary action against those who transgress its requirements.

Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 SCR 190 was, prior to Canada v Vavilov, the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the topic of substantive review and standards of review. Dunsmuir is notable for combining the reasonableness (simpliciter) and the 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.

Wednesbury unreasonableness is a ground of judicial review in Singapore administrative law. A governmental decision that is Wednesbury-unreasonable may be quashed by the High Court. This type of unreasonableness of public body decisions was laid down in the English case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation (1947), where it was said that a public authority acts unreasonably when a decision it makes is "so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrative law in Singapore</span> Law of Singapores government agencies

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.

The concept of reasonableness has two related meanings in law and political theory:

  1. As a legal norm, it is used "for the assessment of such matters as actions, decisions, and persons, rules and institutions, [and] also arguments and judgments."
  2. As a regulative idea, it "requires... that all factors that might be relevant in answering a practical question be considered and... that they be assembled in a correct relation to each other in order to justify [a judgement]."

Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario (Minister of Labour), 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.

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 (i.e., the Cabinet of Canada), and whether it has authority to vary or rescind an administrative tribunal decision on questions of law or jurisdiction.

In Canada, the duty to consult and accommodate with Aboriginal peoples arises when the Crown contemplates actions or decisions that may affect Aboriginal or Treaty rights. This duty arises most often in the context of natural resource extraction such as mining, forestry, oil, and gas.

The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) is Canada's first online tribunal, located in British Columbia (BC), Canada. It is one of the first examples in the world of online dispute resolution (ODR) being incorporated into the public justice system. The CRT was established under the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (2012), which was amended in 2015. The CRT initially had jurisdiction over small claims and strata property (condominium) disputes. On April 23, 2018, the government of British Columbia introduced legislation to expand the CRT's jurisdiction to include certain motor vehicle accident disputes, disputes under the Societies Act, and the Co-operative Association Act.

Canada v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that clarified the determination and application of standard of review in Canadian administrative law. Vavilov established a presumption that reasonableness is the applicable standard of review of administrative decisions in all cases. The case concerned the review of the Canadian Registrar of Citizenship's decision to cancel Alexander Vavilov's citizenship certificate on the basis of his parents' identity as covert Russian agents, based on an interpretation of s. 3(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act. The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Federal Court of Appeal's decision to quash the Canadian Registrar of Citizenship's decision, on the basis that it was unreasonable.

References

  1. ↑ Supreme Court of Canada - Decisions - Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick Archived 2008-03-20 at the Wayback Machine
  2. ↑ "Supreme Court of Canada - Decisions - Toronto (City) Board of Education v. O.S.S.T.F., District 15". Archived from the original on June 2, 2008. Retrieved June 15, 2007.
  3. ↑ The Owners, Strata Plan VR320 v Day, 2023 BCSC 364 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jw4w0>, retrieved on 2023-03-17
  4. ↑ The Owners, Strata Plan VR320 v Day, 2023 BCSC 364 (CanLII), at par. 20 <https://canlii.ca/t/jw4w0>, retrieved on 2023-03-26


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.