Patently unreasonable
Encyclopedia
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.
By a decision issued on March 7, 2008, this test was removed from the law by the Supreme Court of Canada in David Dunsmuir v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick as represented by Board of Management .
In Toronto (City) Board of Education v. O.S.S.T.F., District 15
, [1997] 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.
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).
Standard of review
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...
used by a court when performing judicial review
Judicial review
Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the judiciary. Specific courts with judicial review power must annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority...
of administrative
Canadian administrative law
Canadian administrative law is the body of law that addresses the actions and operations of governments and governmental agencies. 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 minister...
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.
By a decision issued on March 7, 2008, this test was removed from the law by the Supreme Court of Canada in David Dunsmuir v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick as represented by Board of Management .
In Toronto (City) Board of Education v. O.S.S.T.F., District 15
Toronto (City) Board of Education v. O.S.S.T.F., District 15
Toronto Board of Education v. O.S.S.T.F., District 15, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial review of administrative decisions...
, [1997] 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.
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).
See also
- Due processDue processDue process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
, the analogous standard of review in U.S. lawLaw of the United StatesThe law of the United States consists of many levels of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the United States Constitution, the foundation of the federal government of the United States... - Wednesbury unreasonablenessWednesbury unreasonablenessAssociated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] 1 KB 223 is an English law case which set down the standard of unreasonableness of public body decisions which render them liable to be quashed on judicial review...
, the analogous standard of review in in English lawEnglish lawEnglish law is the legal system of England and Wales, and is the basis of common law legal systems used in most Commonwealth countries and the United States except Louisiana...
.