Topic:"Legal Standards" in M08888

Appeal 30(1) An appeal lies to the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court from an order of the Board upon any question as to its jurisdiction or upon any question of law , upon filing with the Court a notice of appeal within thirty days afte...

AI summary The appeal discusses the limited grounds for appealing a Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board (UARB) order, confined to jurisdiction or law. The court emphasizes that factual findings are generally not appealable unless unsupported by evidence, citing precedents like Dr. Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia and Fadelle v. Nova Scotia College of Pharmacists . Legal standards of review, such as reasonableness, are central to the analysis.

ption of reasonableness for a tribunal's interpretation of its home or related statutes: Smith v. Alliance Pipelines Ltd. , [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160, para. 26; McLean , paras. 19-22; Tervita , para. 35; Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission)...

AI summary The text references Supreme Court of Canada cases discussing the reasonableness standard for tribunal interpretations of statutes, including Smith v. Alliance Pipelines Ltd. and Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General) , emphasizing legal precedents on judicial review.

oard deduced that s. 27(3) contemplated something wider than "actual" occupation. - [83] Absent a statutory definition of "occupation", the Board (para. 667) sought guidance from the common law. The Board cited Morrison v. Muise , 2010 NSS...

AI summary The Board interpreted s. 27(3) to encompass broader 'occupation' beyond literal possession, citing Morrison v. Muise and referencing Professor Anne La Forest's analysis of possession in real property law. The Board emphasized evaluating factual circumstances specific to each land dispute.

- 25 (1) The rules set forth in this Part shall be applied in determining the value of land expropriated. - (2) The value of land expropriated shall be the value of that land at the time the expropriation documents are deposited at the off...

AI summary The text outlines rules for valuing expropriated land under Nova Scotia law, emphasizing that compensation is determined by statute at the deposit date (May 1, 2012). It references sections 24-33 of the Expropriation Act, which govern market value, disturbance damages, and excluded factors like future land use. A case citation ( Bank of Nova Scotia v. Nova Scotia ) reinforces statutory compensation principles.

DATE FILED: March 9, 2020 Page 11 of 21 1 and adequate service is maintained. The exercise of any such authority must then also be 7 The relevant legislation provides the Board with the authority to continue to do so in order to 8 fulfill...

AI summary The text discusses the jurisdiction of the Board under the Public Utilities Act, emphasizing that accounting for non-energy impacts is outside the Board's authority, similar to the NEB's jurisdiction. It references the doctrine of necessary implication and relevant legal precedents.

d Immigration) , [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, at paras. 32-35; Pezim v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers) , [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557, at pp. 591-92; Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v.

AI summary The text references Supreme Court of Canada cases ( Pezim v. British Columbia and Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. ), discussing legal standards and precedents relevant to regulatory proceedings. These cases are cited to support arguments about the presumption of reasonableness in decision-making.

further than the ambiguity will fairly allow. But in rigorously applying the latter rule, a court need not pause to puzzle over whether the interpretive question presented is "jurisdictional" . . . . - E. Other Circumstances Requiring a De...

AI summary The text discusses when courts should derogate from the presumption of reasonableness review, emphasizing jurisdictional boundaries, constitutional questions, and legislative intent. It references cases like Alberta Teachers and Dunsmuir, advocating for a focus on substantive merits over procedural tests.

troduce incremental changes to our judicial review framework, while respecting its underlying principles and placing the ball in the legislatures' court to modify the standards of review if they wish. [283] To the extent that concerns were...

AI summary The text discusses maintaining judicial review principles while addressing concerns about administrative decision-making quality. It argues against judicial overreach via de novo reviews, emphasizing training for administrative actors instead. It warns against a checklist approach to reasonableness review, citing risks of excessive judicial scrutiny and delays.