No Right Without a Remedy: Difference between revisions
From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
(Created page with "Category:Legal Principles ==[http://canlii.ca/t/gnkzg Back v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 257 (CanLII)]]== [22] Noting the vast jurisprudence which has...") |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/gnkzg Back v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 257 (CanLII)]]== | ==[http://canlii.ca/t/gnkzg Back v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 257 (CanLII)]]== | ||
[22] Noting the vast jurisprudence which has confirmed the maxim that there is no right without a remedy, the Applicants submit that to deny them the right to argue the appropriate remedy is to deny their constitutional right to judicial review, for which leave has been granted: R v Mills, 1986 CanLII 17 (SCC), | [22] Noting the vast jurisprudence which has confirmed the maxim that there is no right without a remedy, the Applicants submit that to deny them the right to argue the appropriate remedy is to deny their constitutional right to judicial review, for which leave has been granted: [http://canlii.ca/t/1cxmx R v Mills, 1986 CanLII 17 (SCC), (1986) 1 SCR 863]; [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft2z Nelles v Ontario, 1989 CanLII 77 (SCC), (1989) 2 SCR 170]. | ||
Revision as of 22:24, 6 February 2020
Back v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 257 (CanLII)]
[22] Noting the vast jurisprudence which has confirmed the maxim that there is no right without a remedy, the Applicants submit that to deny them the right to argue the appropriate remedy is to deny their constitutional right to judicial review, for which leave has been granted: R v Mills, 1986 CanLII 17 (SCC), (1986) 1 SCR 863; Nelles v Ontario, 1989 CanLII 77 (SCC), (1989) 2 SCR 170.
