The reviewing judge should not be overly fastidious. As Melvin J. stated in Larose v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2000 BCSC 325, 20 Admin. L.R. (3d) 288, at para. 28, a reviewing court must not “minutely dissect any particular sentence in the reasons in isolation with a view to subjecting it to criticism to such a degree that it would constitute an error in law and justify the quashing of the confirmation.”
"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.