Can a finding on a matter of law be considered patently unreasonable?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Bendera v Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 2018 BCSC 552 (CanLII):
A tribunal’s finding on a matter of law may be considered patently unreasonable if it is clearly irrational or “evidently not in accordance with reason”: Yaremy v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2015 BCCA 228, at paras. 19‑20.
"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
Does the Court of Appeal in Dunsmuir hold that a patent unreasonableness standard set forth in s. 59(3) and (4) of the Anti-Patent Unreasonableness Act? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is patent unreasonableness the standard of review for findings of fact or law or exercise of discretion under the Administrative Tribunals Act? (British Columbia, Canada)
What factors will the Court consider in deciding whether it would be unjust to find that a summary trial is appropriate to consider the issues before deciding whether to proceed with a conventional trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for a finding that a judge must not make a finding which would directly contradict a finding previously made by another judge? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the impact of the Court of Appeal Tribunal’s "unreasonable" and "patently unreasonable" interpretation of policy by the tribunal? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the difference between an unreasonable decision and a patently unreasonable decision? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can patent unreasonableness be considered in the context of a section of legislation? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the effect of a finding of no misconduct in a professional conduct review panel finding no misconduct? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is a patently unreasonable decision? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the impact of the respondent’s position that the adjudicator must consider all the relevant evidence before making a credibility finding? (British Columbia, Canada)
