Sentences with phrase «legal presumptions applied»

Not exact matches

But still, and perhaps even more importantly as a practical matter, the opinion for the Court suggests it is quite possible to make the argument that a particular «Guidelines sentence itself fails properly to reflect § 3553 (a) considerations» and that «the sentencing court does not enjoy the benefit of a legal presumption that the Guidelines sentence should apply.»

The problem with these recent decisions isn't so much the Court's desire to curb the presumption of deference and apply correctness to review fundamental legal questions decided in the first instance by a statutory tribunal — this is well within the jurisprudence of Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 and seems to make good sense from most perspectives — but rather the ease with which the Court suggests we can decipher fundamental legal questions from the rest of the field in deciding when to apply the presumption of deference and when not to.

However, where a question of law falls into one of four correctness categories, the presumption is rebutted and correctness applies (Capilano at para 24): These are (i) constitutional questions regarding the division of powers; (ii) issues «both of central importance to the legal system as a whole and outside the adjudicator's specialized area of expertise»; (iii) «true questions of jurisdiction or vires»; and (iv) issues «regarding the jurisdictional lines between two or more competing specialized tribunals».

It is a legal inference that the court MUST make in cases where the presumption applies.

There is a long - established legal presumption that a statute should be interpreted and applied, as far as its language admits, so that it is not inconsistent with the comity of nations and established rules of international law.