Counsel for the appellant asserts: 1. that a verdict which is "perverse" or "inordinately low" is properly classified as an error of law on the part of the jury; 2. that no distinction can rationally be drawn between the jury verdict erroneous in law identified in ter Neuzen v. Korn, 1995 CanLII 72 (SCC), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 674, which the trial judge is empowered to deal with, and any other verdict which is an error in law; 3. that the true rule thus is that the trial judge can reject any verdict which does not meet the legal standard of reasonableness.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.