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.
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]
patently, unreasonable, canadian, patently, unreasonable, patent, unreasonableness, test, standard, review, used, court, when, performing, judicial, review, administrative, decisions, highest, three, standards, review, correctness, unreasonableness, patent, un. 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 editDue process the analogous standard of review in United States administrative law Wednesbury unreasonableness the analogous standard of review in English administrative law Wednesbury unreasonableness in Singapore administrative lawReferences edit Supreme Court of Canada Decisions Dunsmuir v New Brunswick Archived 2008 03 20 at the Wayback Machine 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 The Owners Strata Plan VR320 v Day 2023 BCSC 364 CanLII lt https canlii ca t jw4w0 gt retrieved on 2023 03 17 The Owners Strata Plan VR320 v Day 2023 BCSC 364 CanLII at par 20 lt https canlii ca t jw4w0 gt retrieved on 2023 03 26 nbsp nbsp This article about Canadian law is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Patently unreasonable amp oldid 1165529300, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
