Traditionally, patent unreasonableness was seen as a defect that was so flawed that no amount of curial deference could justify letting it stand. This was referred to in Dunsmuir. . . . Iacobucci J., writing for the Court in Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247, 2003 SCC 20, attempted to bring some clarity to the issue. He explained the different operations of the two deferential standards as follows, at paras. 52-53: [A] patently unreasonable defect, once identified, can be explained simply and easily, leaving no real possibility of doubting that the decision is defective. A patently unreasonable decision has been described as “clearly irrational” or “evidently not in accordance with reason” … A decision that is patently unreasonable is so flawed that no amount of curial deference can justify letting it stand.
"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.