
	Where results make sense

Topic: Patently unreasonable

Related Topics

Wednesbury unreasonableness

Supreme Court of Canada

Due process

Ouagadougou

1948

	Patently unreasonable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Patently unreasonable or the patent unreasonableness test is a legal test created by common law and used in Canada by a court performing judicial review of administrative decisions.
		Although the term "patent unreasonableness" lacks a precise definition in the common law, it is somewhere above unreasonableness, and consequently it is difficult to prove 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.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Patently_unreasonable (201 words)

	Wednesbury unreasonableness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Wednesbury unreasonableness is a term that is used to refer to the principle enunciated in the British case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v.
		The court held that such a condition did not fall into the category of being so unreasonable that it would not be reasonably considered by such a public authority.
		This case or the principle known as "Wednesbury unreasonableness" are cited in British courts as a reason for courts to be hesitant to interfere into the decisions of administrative law bodies.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Wednesbury_unreasonableness (267 words)

	[No title] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-19)
		Vassart. It cannot be said that this approach was patently unreasonable or that there was anything irrational about it; on the contrary, although I do not have to agree with the appellate judge, it is sufficient to say that his method of reasoning was rational and that his decision finds support in the evidence.
		In applying the standard of patent unreasonableness, courts must therefore be careful not to divest themselves of their basic supervisory responsibility as regards the jurisdiction of such tribunals.
		E. Absurd Results and Patent Unreasonableness 126 An error by an administrative body, where it is a specialized tribunal, acting within its jurisdiction, and protected by a privative clause, does not permit courts to substitute their opinion for that of the administrative body.
	www.lexum.umontreal.ca /csc-scc/en/pub/1997/vol1/texte/1997scr1_1015.txt (19619 words)

	[No title] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-19)
		They held that the Commission was protected by a privative clause, and furthermore that its decision was not patently unreasonable, and that Galipeau J. therefore erred in substituting his own decision for that of the Commission.
		He found that the ambiguity of the provision in question was acknowledged and undoubted, and that it could not be said that the interpretation chosen by the Board was a patently unreasonable interpretation.
		Thus, based on the dictionary definition of the words "patently unreasonable", it is apparent that if the decision the Board reached, acting within its jurisdiction, is not clearly irrational, that is to say evidently not in accordance with reason, then it cannot be said that there was a loss of jurisdiction.
	www.lexum.umontreal.ca /csc-scc/en/pub/1996/vol3/texte/1996scr3_0084.txt (4498 words)

	Doris Fo
		Patently unreasonable has been held by the Supreme Court of Canada to mean "...clearly irrational, that is to say evidently not in accordance with reason...".
		The difference between "unreasonable" and "patently unreasonable" lies in the immediacy or obviousness of the defect.
		The fact that this date was picked because it was the implementation date of FIS does not ipso facto mean that this was a patently unreasonable decision by the selection board.
	www.psc-cfp.gc.ca /recours/dec/sum2003/dfox_e.htm (2500 words)

	SICE - NAFTA DISPUTE - CDA-97-1904-02 part 2
		spectrum ranges from patently unreasonable, on the one extreme, where deference is at its highest to correctness at the other extreme where deference is at
		standard of patent unreasonableness may not examine the record.
		While this deference does not reach the level of patent unreasonableness, it does fall very near to that end on the spectrum.
	www.sice.oas.org /dispute/nafta/english/C97194e2.asp (2501 words)

	PSAC (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-19)
		Secondly, if it did have jurisdiction it must be considered whether the Board made a patently unreasonable decision in finding that the appellant contravened the terms of its collective agreement with the respondent, in contracting out data capture activities which until then had been performed by the bargaining unit.
		At first sight, it may appear that the functional analysis applied to cases of patently unreasonable error is not suitable for cases in which an error is alleged in respect of a legislative provision limiting a tribunal's jurisdiction.
		The difference between these two types of errors is clear: only a patently unreasonable error results in an excess of jurisdiction when the question at issue is within the tribunal's jurisdiction, whereas in the case of a legislative provision limiting the tribunal's jurisdiction, a simple error will result in a loss of jurisdiction.
	www.psc-cfp.gc.ca /recours/dec/supreme/psac1_e.htm (9032 words)

	Ajax (Town) v. CAW, Local 222
		It was not patently unreasonable for the Board to find a nexus between the transportation company and the town, as required for successorship.
		It was patently unreasonable for the Board to decide that the termination of the contractual relationship amounted to the sale of a business or part thereof pursuant to s.
		A unanimous bench of the Divisional Court ((1995), 84 O.A.C. found that the interpretation of the Board was patently unreasonable, while a unanimous bench of the Court of Appeal ((1998), 41 O.R. (3d) 426) found that it was not.
	www.lancasterhouse.com /other_links/ajax_v_caw.htm (2739 words)

	Canada (Attorney General) v. King (T.D.) (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-19)
		The patently unreasonable test sets a high standard of review: the impugned decision was clearly not arrived at in accordance with reason or good sense.
		To the non-legal ear, an accusation that one's interpretation or opinion on some matter is patently unreasonable would probably be regarded as a serious, even stinging, rebuke.
		The Applicant has not established that the decision is patently unreasonable, in the sense of being "clearly irrational" or "simply ridiculous".
	reports.fja.gc.ca /fc/2003/pub/v4/2003fc32634.html (3675 words)

	C.U.P.E. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour)
		A patently unreasonable appointment is one whose defect is immediate, obvious and so flawed in terms of implementing the legislative intent that no amount of curial deference can justify letting it stand.
		However, in assessing whether the appointments were patently unreasonable, the courts are entitled to have regard to the importance of the factors the Minister altogether excluded from his consideration.
		41, this Court indicated that a patently unreasonable decision is one that is unreasonable on its face, unsupported by evidence, or vitiated by failure to consider the proper factors or apply the appropriate procedures.
	www.lancasterhouse.com /decisions/2003/may/oca-cupe.htm (14915 words)

	Caimaw v. Paccar of canada ltd., 1989 CanLII 49 (S.C.C.)
		It was "patently unreasonable" for the Board to find that the employer had this power; the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal was agreed with.
		The union submitted that the decision of the Board permitting the employer to alter terms and conditions of employment after unsuccessful bargaining towards a new agreement should be considered patently unreasonable because it is not expressly provided for in the Code or supported by implication from the scheme of the Code.
		I accept, of course, that when we postulate the test of patent unreasonableness we are attempting to assess the reasonableness of the Board's decision, not in terms of the reasonable man or reasonable member of the general public, but in terms of the reasonable Board.
	www.canlii.com /ca/cas/scc/1989/1989scc111.html (17303 words)

	Canada, Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Labour Relations Board)
		The Board's decision that the CBC had interfered with the administration of a trade union or the representation of employees by that union was not patently unreasonable.
		It is not unreasonable to find a connection between the collective bargaining relationship and the activities of unions as they relate to external social issues affecting their members.
		conclusion is patently unreasonable from the perspective of both the purpose of the Code and the authorities.
	www.hrcr.org /safrica/labor/broadcasting_canada.html (2245 words)

	Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal, Noteworthy Decisions
		The worker had sons with his former common law spouse, and was living separate and apart from the children and their mother at the time of his compensable death.
		In this decision the chair concluded that the policy is so patently unreasonable that it is not capable of being supported by the Act.
		The Resolution, including its interim effective date, was the exercise of a quasi-legislative function (or a policy-making function) by the board of directors and as such the board of directors was not required to engage in a process of direct consultation with each employer who fell into the new classification.
	www.wcat.bc.ca /research/noteworthy_decisions.htm (6870 words)

	Canada, Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop
		Where the Court has limited the power of intervention of the reviewing courts to cases of patent unreasonableness, the tribunals were acting under the special protection of privative clauses.
		This is a matter that lay at the heart of the Tribunal's specialized jurisdiction and expertise, and it cannot be said that this conclusion is at all unreasonable, a fortiori patently unreasonable.
		Since this conclusion is far from being patently unreasonable, it must be left undisturbed.
	www.hrcr.org /safrica/equality/canada_mossop2.html (2390 words)

	USCA1 Opinion 01-2166 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-19)
		Castillo argues that the "manifestly unreasonable" standard that the trial court applied in assessing trial counsel's tactical judgment is contrary to the standard the Supreme Court prescribed in Strickland.
		As the Supreme Court in Strickland implicitly affirmed the lower court's "patently unreasonable" formulation in the context of tactical decision-making, the standard employed by the trial court in evaluating Castillo's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not "diametrically different," "opposite in character or nature," or "mutually opposed" to Strickland.
		Castillo appears to suggest that the state court erroneously applied the "manifestly unreasonable" standard to each of the alleged errors of counsel that Castillo raised, regardless of whether these allegations related to trial counsel's strategic decision-making or to her performance.
	www.ca1.uscourts.gov /cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2166.01A (5357 words)

	Judicial Reviews: Judges' Comments on WSIAT (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-19)
		"Patently unreasonable" means the decision must be "clearly irrational" or "not in accordance with reason" before the court will judicially review the decision.
		It is far from irrational or unreasonable to conclude that the right of re employment, found in s.54, is a fundamental condition of the entitlement to compensation in Ontario, an integral part of Ontario's compensation scheme, and therefore one of the benefits available as compensation in Ontario under s.4(2) of the GECA.
		If the standard, however, is correctness, and I am wrong in concluding that the Tribunal's decision is entitled to curial deference based on its expertise and/or its jurisdictional hegemony, I am of the view, based on the foregoing analysis, that the Tribunal's decision is correct.
	www.wsiat.on.ca /english/judicialReview.htm (2152 words)

	Norway House Indian Band v. Canada ( Adjudicator, Labour Code ) ( T.D. ) (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-19)
		When a court says that a decision under review is "reasonable" or "patently unreasonable" it is making a statement about the logical relationship between the grounds of the decision and premises thought by the court to be true.
		In that case the arbitrator is acting within his or her "home territory", and any judicial review of that interpretation must only be to a standard of patent unreasonableness.
		It is not certain that he ought to have dismissed it; what is certain is that he approached his task and performed it in a patently unreasonable manner and accordingly came to a highly tainted conclusion which may likewise be characterized as patently unreasonable.
	reports.fja.gc.ca /fc/1994/pub/v3/1994fca0287.html (15028 words)

	Laborers (LIUNA) brief explaining adoption of EDP amendments in Serpico vs. LIUNA (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-19)
		"unreasonable, perhaps even patently unreasonable." It went on, however, to find that even without such deference there was no question that the Board had reason to regard the situation as constituting an emergency on the critical date.
		By deferring to judgments of the union leadership that are not patently unreasonable, the Court necessarily vindicates the very "paramount right of union members to self-determination" that plaintiffs say they advocate in this case.
		Far from "unreasonable, perhaps patently so," the GEB's decision has proved to be one of the great successes in union reform in recent memory.
	www.thelaborers.net /court_cases/Serpicobrief.html (11826 words)

	Patently unreasonable -- Facts, Info, and Encyclopedia article (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-19)
		Patently unreasonable -- Facts, Info, and Encyclopedia article
		Patently unreasonable or the patent unreasonableness test is a legal test created by (A system of jurisprudence based on judicial precedents rather than statutory laws) common law and used in Canada by a court performing judicial review of (Click link for more info and facts about administrative) administrative decisions.
		In theory, according to the (Click link for more info and facts about Supreme Court of Canada) Supreme Court of Canada in Baker v.
	www.absoluteastronomy.com /encyclopedia/p/pa/patently_unreasonable.htm (202 words)

	Irving Oil Ltd. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Finance) (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-19)
		The test of patently unreasonable is to be applied when the decision maker is operating within jurisdiction.
		"Unreasonable" is defined as "not having the faculty of reason, irrational, not acting in accordance with reason or good sense".
		In order for a decision of the Minister to be patently unreasonable it must be found to be irrational.
	www.tobaccolaw.org /documents/english/Cases/IrvingOilvNewBrunswick.htm (2898 words)

	McCarthy Tétrault LLP - Publications - Recent Supreme Court of Canada Decisions (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-19)
		On appeal, the Superior Court and a majority of the Court of Appeal held that the decision of the Labour Court was not patently unreasonable.
		The majority of the SCC held that the approach taken by the Labour Court was not patently unreasonable.
		Second, because of the privative clause contained in the Code, the issue before the SCC was whether the Labour Courts decision was patently unreasonable under the Code; that is, the SCC was not itself determining which of the Agency or the City was the employer.
	www.mccarthy.ca /pubs/publication.asp?pub_code=954 (1432 words)

	Canada, Newfoundland Association of Public Employees v. Newfoundland (Green Bay Health Care Centre)
		Judicial review -- Standards of review -- Patently unreasonable or correctness standards -- Collective agreement more stringent than provincial human rights code -- Arbitration board deciding that agreement's definition of discrimination must be the same as the Code's -- Whether the patently unreasonable standard should apply or the correctness standard in review of Board's decision.
		A court should not interfere with a labour arbitration board's interpretation of a collective agreement unless that decision is patently unreasonable.
		It was not patently unreasonable, however, as the Board considered the relevant collective agreement provision and jurisprudence in its deliberations.
	www.hrcr.org /safrica/labor/newfoundland_newfoundland.html (1061 words)

	Arbitrators' reinstatement of Bhadauria quashed by Supreme Court of Canada (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-19)
		The court held that Bhadauria's conditional reinstatement by the majority of a board of arbitration was patently unreasonable because the board had no evidence on which to base its conclusion that his misconduct was a temporary phenomenon.
		In this case, as the parties had agreed that Bhadauria's conduct when he wrote the letters did not meet the standards required of a teacher under the Education Act, the issues before the board were whether this conduct was a temporary aberration and whether discharge was appropriate.
		Yet that is not sufficient in itself to base a conclusion that the decision of the majority was patently unreasonable.
	www.emondharnden.com /bhaduri.html (1364 words)

	[No title]
		As a general rule, reasonable and necessary bylaw provisions as to nominations will be upheld; however, patently unreasonable bylaws will be struck down.
		Of course, whether a given provision is reasonable and necessary or patently unreasonable is a question of fact for a court to determine.
		You may wish to make the argument that the one percent provision is patently unreasonable and would not withstand a court challenge should-a member choose to bring one.
	www.ncua.gov /GuidesManuals/bylaws/1990/90-0520.html (655 words)

	ipedia.com: Patently unreasonable Article (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-19)
		Patently unreasonable or the patent unreasonableness test is a legal test created by common law and used in Canada by the court in the judicial review of administrative decisions.
		It is the highest of three standards of review, being correctness, unreasonableness, and patent unreasonableness.
		In practice, this is highly unlikely, since a right of appeal often determines the standard of review to be lower.
	www.ipedia.com /patently_unreasonable.html (243 words)

	Royal Oak Mines Inc. v. Canada (Labour Relations Board), 1996 CanLII 220 (S.C.C.)
		The remedy directed by the Board was not patently unreasonable; rather, it was eminently sensible and appropriate in the circumstances.
		A remedial order will be considered patently unreasonable where: (1) the remedy is punitive in nature; (2) the remedy granted infringes the Charter; (3) there is no rational connection between the breach, its consequences, and the remedy; (4) the remedy contradicts the objects and purposes of the Code.
		L-2, fell within the specialized jurisdiction of the Board, and that this finding was not patently unreasonable under the circumstances.
	www.canlii.org /ca/cas/scc/1996/1996scc18.html (18901 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)