How has the substantial and unreasonable component of the test been interpreted?
Yukon, Canada
The following excerpt is from Northern Cross (Yukon) Ltd. v. Yukon (Energy, Mines and Resources), 2021 YKSC 3 (CanLII):
In the decision of Chingee v. British Columbia, 2016 BCSC 760, at paras. 35 and 36, Verhoeven J. reviewed and summarized the substantial and unreasonable component of the test as follow:
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
How have courts interpreted the meaning of the word “proceeding” in the context of the English Limitation Act? (Yukon, Canada)
How have the courts interpreted the concept of conspiracy in a claim of wrongful dismissal? (Yukon, Canada)
How have the courts interpreted the principle of "reasonable diligence" in assessing the facts of a claim? (Yukon, Canada)
Can a consent order be interpreted in the same way as a contract? (Yukon, Canada)
Is solicitor-client privilege an important component of the Canadian legal system? (Yukon, Canada)
What is the current state of the law on "originalism" in the context of constitutional interpretation? (Yukon, Canada)
How have the reasons of a tribunal decision been interpreted by chambers judges? (Yukon, Canada)
How have courts interpreted the meaning of words in a statute? (Yukon, Canada)
What is the test for the interpretation of a clause in a commercial contract where the contract states that the contract does not contain any specific terms? (Yukon, Canada)
How have the courts interpreted the constructive trust remedy in a family law case? (Yukon, Canada)
