The following excerpt is from Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Local 523N v. Lake Utopia Paper, 2014 NBQB 39 (CanLII):
In both this case and in Irving Paper v. CEP 30, the parties were requested to provide post-hearing submissions regarding whether these conflicting decisions can both be reasonable following review. In neither case had it been submitted that the assessment of reasonableness in one application was impacted by the conflicting decision of the other nor, did either of the applicants or respondents (in either case) request, in the alternative, that, if there were still two conflicting decisions after the review for reasonableness, there be judicial intervention to resolve the continuing conflict.
"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.