|
Judicial Review - Prerogative Remedies - General [JRPA 2(1)1]. P.C. v. Ontario (Attorney General)
In P.C. v. Ontario (Attorney General) (Ont CA, 2020) the Court of Appeal commented on the role of extraordinary remedies in jurisdictional issues such as mandamus and certiorari:[34] An order in lieu of mandamus may issue to compel a court of limited jurisdiction to exercise its jurisdiction or to discharge a duty. However, it does not compel a court, tribunal, or official to do so in a particular way: Vasarhelyi, at para. 51.
[35] Jurisdiction is concerned with the authority to decide an issue or to discharge a duty, not with the correctness or the nature of the decision made. On subjects within its jurisdiction, a court of limited jurisdiction has the right to be wrong about the construction of a statute or the application of a legal principle. The remedy to correct that error is an appeal, if available, from the final disposition. Applications for orders in lieu of extraordinary remedies, such as mandamus and certiorari, are of no assistance: Vasarhelyi, at para. 52.
[36] Errors in the interpretation of statutory provisions (that are not jurisdictional in nature), as well as mistakes in the admission, exclusion, and assessment of evidence are not jurisdictional in nature, are thus beyond the compass of extraordinary remedies: Vasarhelyi, at para. 53.
|
