What are the three standard of review?

Concerning constitutional questions, three basic standards of review exist: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. This form of standard of review is sometimes also called the standard or level of scrutiny.

What is correctness standard review?

Under the correctness standard, a reviewing court does not show deference to the decision-maker’s reasoning process. Under the reasonableness standard, deference is shown to the decision-maker; the decision must fall within a range of acceptable outcomes, but it need not be “correct”.

What is the Vavilov decision?

Under the Vavilov framework, reasonableness is a “robust” form of review, requiring the reviewing court to examine whether both the outcome and the reasoning justifying the outcome is reasonable. An otherwise reasonable outcome cannot stand if it was reached on an improper basis.

Why is Vavilov case important?

Vavilov provides direction to judges on the applicable standard of review, to decision-makers on how to avoid the pitfalls which may lead to being overturned on review, and lastly to lawyers on how you may be able to challenge an unfavourable decision.

What does rationally related mean?

: a reason or ground (as for legislation or an action by a government agency) that is not unreasonable or arbitrary and that bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest — see also rational basis test.

What is tiered scrutiny?

The tiers of scrutiny are elements of a method of constitutional analysis in which courts examine the goal that a law purports to achieve and the means the law uses to accomplish it. It is usually said that there are three tiers.

What is the most common type of postconviction relief?

The most common basis for relief in a petition for post-conviction relief is that a client did not receive effective assistance of counsel in connection with a guilty plea, at trial, at sentencing, or on appeal.

What is a privative clause?

A statutory provision that purports to limit or preclude judicial review of a defined category of administrative action or decision.

What does patently unreasonable mean in law?

Patently unreasonable. 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.

What is the patently-unreasonable test of interpretation?

In the context of a decision interpreting a collective labour agreement, the patently-unreasonable test was held to mean that the court will not intervene unless the words of the collective agreement have been given an interpretation they cannot reasonably bear.

What are the three standards of review for patent cases?

It was the highest of three standards of review: correctness, unreasonableness, and patent unreasonableness. Although the term “patent unreasonableness” lacked a precise definition in the common law, it was somewhere above unreasonableness, and consequently it was relatively difficult to show that a decision is patently unreasonable.