Whether judicial economy would be advanced, in some way, by hearing a case notwithstanding that the concrete dispute has been resolved; and
Not exact matches
This because it considered that the Implementing Regulation was a regulatory act (within the meaning of Inuit I), and that it did not entail implementing measures (the Commission holds that this condition is a test as to
whether «the lowest act in the hierarchy of norms is challenged» — a question of
judicial economy and the organisation of
judicial remedies).
Justice Brown found that the
whether or not the court should exercise its discretion to hear a moot appeal, is guided by the following test: (i)
whether the issues can be well and fully argued by parties who have a stake in the outcome; (ii) the concern for
judicial economy; and (iii) the need for the court to remain alive to the proper limits of its law - making function in order to avoid intrusions into the role of the legislative branch.
Three factors are relevant in determining
whether a court should entertain a moot appeal: (i) the presence of an adversarial context that will ensure that the issues are well and fully argued; (ii) concern for
judicial economy; and (iii) awareness of the court's proper law - making function: Borowski, pp. 358 - 363.