Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Canadian administrative law is the body of law "that applies to all administrative decisions, whether issued by front-line officials, ministers, economic regulatory agencies, or administrative tribunals, with interpretations of law and exercises of discretion subject to the same . . . rules." [1] Administrative law is concerned primarily with ...
The Canada Evidence Act [1] (French: Loi sur la preuve au Canada) is an act of the Parliament of Canada, first passed in 1893, that regulates the rules of evidence in court proceedings under federal law. As law of evidence is largely set by common law, the act is not comprehensive. The act applies to court proceedings conducted under federal law.
In Canadian administrative law, judicial review is for courts to ensure "administrative decision-makers" stay within the boundaries of the law. [1] It is meant to ensure that powers granted to government actors, administrative agencies, boards and tribunals are exercised consistently with the rule of law. Judicial review is intended as a last ...
The Canada Evidence Act is an Act of the Parliament of Canada, first passed in 1893, that regulates the rules of evidence in court proceedings under federal law. [66] Each province also has its own evidence statute, governing the law of evidence in civil proceedings in the province.
In Canadian law, a reasonable apprehension of bias is a legal standard for disqualifying judges and administrative decision-makers for bias. Bias of the decision-maker can be real or merely perceived. The test was first stated in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. Canada (National Energy Board), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369:
The Court, in holding for Vavilov, established a new framework for determining the standard of review in Canadian administrative law. Firstly, the court decided that reasonableness was the default standard of review. It then outlined two kinds of exceptions to that general rule, under which the correctness standard would apply instead.
The US exclusionary rule excludes all evidence acquired through the violation of the Bill of Rights. Canada has taken a middle ground, sometimes allowing for the exclusion of evidence, whenever its use threatens to bring the "administration of justice" into "disrepute." [1]
In Canadian law, patently unreasonable or the patent unreasonableness test was a standard of review used by a court when performing judicial review of administrative decisions. It was the highest of three standards of review: correctness, unreasonableness, and patent unreasonableness. Although the term "patent unreasonableness" lacked a precise ...