Sentences with phrase «deferential standard of review»

In this case, the arbitrator's interpretation of the Limitations Act, 2002 and the Wishart Act did not attract that kind of strict and less deferential standard of review of correctness.

Looming large above this two - step doctrine is the «step zero» question: when does Chevron apply, as opposed to a less - deferential standard of review?

In Ledcor, the court was not assessing a specialized arbitrator's interpretation of the home statute and the exercise of specialized expertise, which would have given rise to a deferential standard of review.

In B.C. the scope of appellate intervention in commercial arbitration is narrow: there is limited jurisdiction for appellate review of arbitration awards because B.C. is statutorily limited to questions of law (Arbitration Act, s. 31); even where such jurisdiction exists, the S.C.C. held that a deferential standard of review — reasonableness — «almost always» applies to arbitration awards (Sattva Capital v. Creston Moly Corp., [2014] 2 S.C.R. 633, at paras. 75, 104 and 106).

The Court of Appeal, using a deferential standard of review, allowed the appeals, and ordered that the two issues be remitted to the trial justice for a fresh assessment.

This is a highly deferential standard of review.

[92] Any reasonable reading of the home statute would indicate that a highly deferential standard of review must have been intended by the legislature.

Specifically, the Supreme Court characterizes this decision as a discretionary one of mixed fact and law, thereby subjecting it to a deferential standard of review.

P. 52 (a)(6) mandates this more deferential standard of review and nothing in the Court's jurisprudence or the rationales adopted by the Federal Circuit in Cybor permitted a different standard.

54 It is common ground that findings with respect to undue influence and the intention of a party to gratuitously transfer property to another are subject to a deferential standard of review.

References to «rigorous Charter protection» notwithstanding, [1] it is difficult to see how this explicitly deferential standard of review better protects Charter rights than does the Oakes test.

Clearly the more deferential the standard of review the more difficult it will be for Burnaby to convince the FCA that it should grant leave.

One is to apply deferential standards of review, whether on appeal or judicial review.

Bluntly stated, yet with great respect; the law has spent more than forty years looking for the true jurisdictional question, twenty years trying to assess the relative expertise of tribunals, ten years trying to convince everyone of a meaningful distinction between two deferential standards of review and now another possible lifetime wandering the administrative galaxy looking for questions of law of central importance to the legal system.

Not exact matches

All the things we study over the course of the semester in M&A on, for example, when it makes sense to structure the transaction as a reserve subsidiary merger rather than as a cash tender offer; when to file a Schedule TO or Form S - 4; or whether, if challenged, the board's actions will be reviewed under the entire fairness standard or the more deferential business judgment rule is irrelevant if there is no transaction.

Justice Manderscheid canvasses Dunsmuir and earlier Alberta cases concerning the standard of review applicable to FOIP decisions, and based on this jurisprudence he rules the standard of review applicable to the Commissioner's decisions is the deferential reasonableness standard (at paras 26 — 40).

The court decided to review Issues 2, 3, 5 and 6 on a «deferential standard of reasonableness,» but applied correctness to Issues 1 and 4: «While I acknowledge that in the administrative law context a tribunal may develop its own procedures as to admissibility without the recognized strictures found in the judicial rules of evidence, whereas issues # 1 and # 4 principally involve specific questions of law and concurrent issues involving breaches of natural justice or procedural fairness, I will apply a standard of correctness.

Indeed, if the Court's treatment of the category of jurisdictional questions in Alberta Teachers» Association suggests a willingness to narrow the categories of correctness review in order to be more deferential, [75] this aim will be frustrated if the standard of reasonableness is applied in a nondeferential manner.

Accordingly, a court should be deferential in reviewing an appellate decision - maker's choice of standard of review.

As the Court put it, in the absence of breaches of procedural fairness, «the Courts take a very deferential stance in relation to the discretionary decisions of academic institutions concerning academic matters and the standard of review is one of reasonableness.»

In British Columbia, standard of review issues are regulated by the Administrative Tribunals Act: correctness review is provided for in respect of some questions (including procedural ones); deferential review in respect of others (including exercises of discretion).

Given the «typical case» characterization of the trial judge and the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review, the appellant court perceived the lower court could have reasoned that the hourly rate was too high or number of hours claimed excessive for a case which was not extraordinary in nature.

Most assuredly, Dunsmuir made a herculean effort to simplify the doctrine of administrative deference by providing a two - step framework for identifying the proper review standard and by reducing the number of deferential standards to a single standard of «reasonableness.»

When an applicant seeks leave to appeal, the standard of review adopted by the court is deferential.

Although an order denying routine costs is reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard, there is an important qualifier to application of this rule — there must be an indication that the trial court actually did exercise discretion.

That determination was affirmed on appeal because the amount of fees award is reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.

The C.A. held the chambers judge incorrectly applied the reasonableness standard of review; courts must be deferential to a tribunal's interpretation of its statute, so long as it is reasonable.

In Ledcor, the Supreme Court articulated the interpretation of a standard form contract as an exception to the rule that contractual interpretation by a specialized arbitrator is a question of mixed fact and law subject to deferential review on appeal.

A different and less deferential standard applies to appellate review of a jury award of punitive damages.

The standard of review for findings of mixed law and fact is highly deferential, requiring a palpable and overriding error before an appellate court will intervene.

It relied on another recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, where Wagner J. (as he then was) wrote that interpretation of a standard form contract can, in certain situations, be a question of law subject to correctness review standard (the stricter and less deferential review standard).

In Victory Motors, the Court of Appeal crucially confirmed that the Edmonton East decision is definitive of the standard of review applicable to the Board in such instances, and properly applied a deferential review of the Board's decision.

The standard of review accorded by an appellate court to a trial judge on findings of fact is a deferential one.