Polycentric more restraint (Pushpanathan), more deference balancing mult interests, constituencies, jud’l factors (e.g. vs. indiv dcn less def) or has signif policy dimensions (Agraira, Can Imm Baker: Consult’s, McLean) Does it fall into 1 of 4 Correctness exceptions (Dunsmuir)? Constitutional issue? Q of gen law that is BOTH of central imp to legal sys as whole AND o/s expertise spec’d Drawing lines b/t 2 or more competing specialized tribunals (Figliola) jrdx’l Determination of Q of where AT deciding whether it has jrdx to consider certain matter jrdx/vires “True” (Alberta CUPE) Teachers’, **Reasonableness = SOR when: specialized/expert AT; interpret its ES or closely related stat; Q of fact or mixed Q; presumptive on Q of law involving interp of home stat; broad stat discretion to render dcn affecting CV; correctly applies all legal ex’g indiv’d princs/tests; construct interp of stat powers that fall w/in RoPAIs; supported by adeq rsns **If above 4 factors all calibrate in favour of less deference/correctness still fit it into one of 4 correctness exceptions – Apply SOR was SOR met in circs? – Look at reasoning, reasons, outcome Is outcome within the range of possible acceptable outcomes defensible in respect of the facts and the law? Is there justification, transparency and intelligibility to the dcn? Indicate some expertise (recall: interp of HS gives ADM interp upper hand construe jrdx too narrowly) don’t Recall: reasons need NOT be perfect (prohibition on re-weighing, but what courts do!) that’s Apply to fact, talk about in terms of impact on client, importance of of public law interest, PI imp’ce; rhetoric Remedy Usual remedy is QUASH dcn and send back for re-determination certiorari – Can also use, at FC, for example: remedial power of FCs; other prerog writs (declaration; order s/o to fulfill duty in partic way: prohibit DM from acting, etc.) Insite;
Polycentric more jud’l restraint (Pushpanathan), more deference balancing mult interests, constituencies, factors (e.g. Can Imm Consult’s, vs. Baker: indiv dcn less def) or has signif policy dimensions (Agraira, McLean) Does it fall into 1 of 4 Correctness exceptions (Dunsmuir)? Constitutional issue? Q of gen law that is BOTH of central imp to legal sys as whole AND o/s spec’d expertise Drawing jrdx’l lines b/t 2 or more competing specialized tribunals (Figliola) Determination of “True” Q of jrdx/vires where AT deciding whether it has jrdx to consider certain matter (Alberta Teachers’, CUPE) **Reasonableness = presumptive SOR when: specialized/expert AT; interpret its ES or closely related stat; Q of fact or mixed Q; on Q of law involving interp of home stat; ex’g broad stat discretion to render indiv’d dcn affecting CV; correctly applies all legal princs/tests; construct interp of stat powers that fall w/in RoPAIs; supported by adeq rsns **If above 4 factors all calibrate in favour of less deference/correctness – still fit it into one of 4 correctness exceptions Apply SOR – was SOR met in circs? Look at reasoning, reasons, outcome Is outcome within the range of possible acceptable outcomes defensible in respect of the facts and the law? Is there justification, transparency and intelligibility to the dcn? Indicate some expertise (recall: interp of HS gives ADM interp upper hand don’t construe jrdx too narrowly) Recall: reasons need NOT be perfect (prohibition on re-weighing, but that’s what courts do!) Apply to fact, talk about in terms of impact on client, importance of interest, PI imp’ce; rhetoric of public law Remedy Usual remedy is certiorari – QUASH dcn and send back for re-determination Can also use, at FC, for example: remedial power of FCs; other prerog writs (declaration; order s/o to fulfill duty in partic way: Insite; prohibit DM from acting, etc.)