Standard of Review (Appeal): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/h677c Toronto Community Housing Corp. v. Zelsman, 2017 ONSC 5289 (CanLII)]== | ==[http://canlii.ca/t/h677c Toronto Community Housing Corp. v. Zelsman, 2017 ONSC 5289 (CanLII)]== | ||
[29] Pursuant to s. 210(1) of the RTA, a statutory right of appeal lies from a decision of the Board on questions of law. The Court of Appeal has held that the Board is charged with administering a specialized adjudicative regime for resolving disputes with which it has particular familiarity, when it is interpreting its “home statute” or making determinations with respect to its core functions, and as such, the deferential standard of reasonableness applies to its decisions.[ | [29] Pursuant to s. 210(1) of the RTA, a statutory right of appeal lies from a decision of the Board on questions of law. The Court of Appeal has held that the Board is charged with administering a specialized adjudicative regime for resolving disputes with which it has particular familiarity, when it is interpreting its “home statute” or making determinations with respect to its core functions, and as such, the deferential standard of reasonableness applies to its decisions. see [http://canlii.ca/t/2fcx9 First Ontario Realty Corporation Ltd. v. Deng, 2011 ONCA 54 (CanLII)] | ||
[30] In [http://canlii.ca/t/1vxsm Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick] the Supreme Court held that reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process. But it is also concerned with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law. | [30] In [http://canlii.ca/t/1vxsm Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick] the Supreme Court held that reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process. But it is also concerned with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law. | ||
[31] <b><u>Questions of sufficiency of evidence or credibility, being questions of mixed fact and law, are not reviewable on appeal.</b></u> ([http://canlii.ca/t/1fr34 Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc., 1997 CanLII 385 (SCC), (1997) 1 SCR 748]) | [31] <b><u>Questions of sufficiency of evidence or credibility, being questions of mixed fact and law, are not reviewable on appeal.</b></u> ([http://canlii.ca/t/1fr34 Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc., 1997 CanLII 385 (SCC), (1997) 1 SCR 748]) | ||
Revision as of 01:12, 2 January 2020
Toronto Community Housing Corp. v. Zelsman, 2017 ONSC 5289 (CanLII)
[29] Pursuant to s. 210(1) of the RTA, a statutory right of appeal lies from a decision of the Board on questions of law. The Court of Appeal has held that the Board is charged with administering a specialized adjudicative regime for resolving disputes with which it has particular familiarity, when it is interpreting its “home statute” or making determinations with respect to its core functions, and as such, the deferential standard of reasonableness applies to its decisions. see First Ontario Realty Corporation Ltd. v. Deng, 2011 ONCA 54 (CanLII)
[30] In Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick the Supreme Court held that reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process. But it is also concerned with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.
[31] Questions of sufficiency of evidence or credibility, being questions of mixed fact and law, are not reviewable on appeal. (Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc., 1997 CanLII 385 (SCC), (1997) 1 SCR 748)
