Patently Unreasonable
   HOME
*





Patently Unreasonable
In Canadian law, patently unreasonable or the ''patent unreasonableness test'' was a standard of review used by a court when performing judicial review of Canadian administrative law, 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'' . In ''Toronto (City) Board of Education v Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Distri ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


picture info

Canadian Law
The legal system of Canada is Legal pluralism, pluralist: its foundations lie in the English common law system (inherited from its period as a colony of the British Empire), the Napoleonic Code, French civil law system (inherited from its New France, French Empire past), and Canadian Indigenous law, Indigenous law systems developed by the various Indigenous peoples of Canada, Indigenous Nations. The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of the country, and consists of written text and unwritten conventions. The ''Constitution Act, 1867'' (known as the British North America Acts, British North America Act prior to 1982), affirmed governance based on parliamentary precedent and divided powers between the federal and provincial governments. The Statute of Westminster 1931 granted full autonomy, and the ''Constitution Act, 1982'' ended all legislative ties to Britain, as well as adding a constitutional amending formula and the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. The ''Cha ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


Standard Of Review
In law, the standard of review is the amount of deference given by one court (or some other appellate tribunal) 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 (stare decisis). 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. United States In the United States, the term "standard of review" has several different meanings i ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


picture info

Judicial Review
Judicial review is a process under which executive, legislative and administrative actions are subject to review by the judiciary. A court with authority for judicial review may invalidate laws, acts and governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority: an executive decision may be invalidated for being unlawful or a statute may be invalidated for violating the terms of a constitution. Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers: the power of the judiciary to supervise the legislative and executive branches when the latter exceed their authority. The doctrine varies between jurisdictions, so the procedure and scope of judicial review may differ between and within countries. General principles Judicial review can be understood in the context of two distinct—but parallel—legal systems, civil law and common law, and also by two distinct theories of democracy regarding the manner in which government should be organized w ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


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 such as a board, tribunal, commission, agency, or Crown minister, while exercising ministerial discretion. Administrative law is concerned primarily with the legality of administrative decision making and with issues of procedural fairness (rights for those affected by the decision to participate in the decision making process). Administrative law concerns the interpretation of statutes and rules of government operations. Courts, when applying administrative law, look to ensure that administrative or governmental actors and bodies observe and act within the legal limits on their authority. Sources of law The powers of an administrative decision-maker ("ADM") are primarily created by statute, which is known as the "enabling sta ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


picture info

Supreme Court Of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; french: Cour suprême du Canada, CSC) is the Supreme court, highest court in the Court system of Canada, judicial system of Canada. It comprises List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal Appeal, appellate courts. The Supreme Court is bijural, hearing cases from two major legal traditions (common law and Civil law (legal system), civil law) and bilingual, hearing cases in both Official bilingualism in Canada, official languages of Canada (English language, English and French language, French). The effects of any judicial decision on the common law, on the interpretation of statutes, or on any other application of law, can, in effect, be nullified by legislation, unless the particular decision of the court in question involves applicatio ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


Dunsmuir V New Brunswick
was, prior to ''Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 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. Facts David Dunsmuir was hired by the Department of Justice of the Province of New Brunswick as of February 25, 2002. His work was unsatisfactory to his employer and he received multiple written notices to this effect. Ultimately, his employer decided to terminate his employment as of December 31, 2004. On August 19, 2004, Dunsmuir was informed in a letter that his employment was being terminated. As his employment was not being terminated "for cause," Dunsmuir was granted several months of paid leave with which to find a new job. Dunsmuir grieved his dismissal in a letter sent to the Deputy Minister on September 1, 2004. When his grievance ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  




Toronto (City) Board Of Education V Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 15
''Toronto (City) Board of Education v Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 15'', 9971 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. Background Jagdish Bhadauria, a secondary school teacher, had made 39 applications for a position of vice-principal. He was granted several interviews but never hired. He filed a complaint to the human rights commission for discrimination. His claim of systemic discrimination was not made out and his claim was rejected. During and immediately following the adjudication of Bhadauria's complaint, he wrote three letters to members of the senior administration of his employer board of education comparing the actions of select administrators to those of Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin, Augusto Pinochet, and others. Bhadauria was subjected to ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


Due Process
Due process of law is application by state of all legal rules and principles pertaining to the case so all legal rights that are owed to the person are respected. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law. Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings (see substantive due process) so that judges, instead of legislators, may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. That interpretation has proven controversial. Analogous to the concepts of natural justice and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions, the interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government must not be unfair to the people or abuse them physically. The term is not used in contemporary English law, but t ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


United States Administrative Law
United may refer to: Places * United, Pennsylvania, an unincorporated community * United, West Virginia, an unincorporated community Arts and entertainment Films * ''United'' (2003 film), a Norwegian film * ''United'' (2011 film), a BBC Two film Literature * ''United!'' (novel), a 1973 children's novel by Michael Hardcastle Music * United (band), Japanese thrash metal band formed in 1981 Albums * ''United'' (Commodores album), 1986 * ''United'' (Dream Evil album), 2006 * ''United'' (Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell album), 1967 * ''United'' (Marian Gold album), 1996 * ''United'' (Phoenix album), 2000 * ''United'' (Woody Shaw album), 1981 Songs * "United" (Judas Priest song), 1980 * "United" (Prince Ital Joe and Marky Mark song), 1994 * "United" (Robbie Williams song), 2000 * "United", a song by Danish duo Nik & Jay featuring Lisa Rowe Television * ''United'' (TV series), a 1990 BBC Two documentary series * ''United!'', a soap opera that aired on BBC One from 1965-19 ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


Wednesbury Unreasonableness
''Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation'' 9481 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 ''Wednesbury'' unreasonableness. The court gave three conditions on which it would intervene to correct a bad administrative decision, including on grounds of its unreasonableness in the special sense later articulated in ''Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service'' by Lord Diplock: Facts In 1947 Associated Provincial Picture Houses was granted a licence by the Wednesbury Corporation in Staffordshire to operate a cinema on condition that no children under 15, whether accompanied by an adult or not, were admitted on Sundays. Under the Cinematograph Act 1909, cinemas could be open from Mondays to Saturdays but not on Sundays, and under a Regulation, the commanding officer of military forces stationed in a neig ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


picture info

English Administrative Law
United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years. Almost any public body, or private bodies exercising public functions, can be the target of judicial review, including a government department, a local council, any Minister, the Prime Minister, or any other body that is created by law. The only public body whose decisions cannot be reviewed is Parliament, when it passes an Act. Otherwise, a claimant can argue that a public body's decision was unlawful in five main types of case: (1) it exceeded the lawful power of the body, used its power for ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


picture info

Wednesbury Unreasonableness In Singapore 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". ''Wednesbury'' unreasonableness was subsequently equated with irrationality by the House of Lords in '' Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service'' (the ''GCHQ'' case, 1983). These cases have been applied numerous times in Singapore, though in some decisions it is not very clear whether the courts have applied such a stringent standard. In the UK, courts have applied varying standards of scrutiny when assessing whethe ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]