|
Statutory Interpretation - Standard of Review (SOR). Morrissey v. Wawanesa Insurance Company
In Morrissey v. Wawanesa Insurance Company (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a LAT SABS appeal, here where a long-term catastrophically-injured auto insurance claimant sought additional 'attendent care benefits'.
Here the court identifies the SOR for statutory interpretation as 'correctness':(1) The standard of review
[39] There is no dispute that because this appeal is concerned exclusively with questions of statutory interpretation, the standard of review is correctness: Vavilov, at para. 37. . French v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police)
In French v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) (Fed CA, 2024) the Federal Court of Appeal sets out the SOR for issues of 'statutory interpretation':[3] Statutory interpretation is a question of law and is to be reviewed on a standard of correctness in this appeal: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 at para. 8 (Housen). . Google LLC v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner)
In Google LLC v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner) (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the SOR for issues of statutory interpretation was 'correctness':[51] ... The substantive questions at issue are at bottom questions of statutory interpretation. There is therefore nothing that would justify a departure from correctness as the applicable standard of review: see, for example, Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 40 at para. 33; Price v. Canada, 2012 FCA 332 at para. 14. . Wong v. Lui
In Wong v. Lui (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal affirms that the standard of review for an appeal on an issue of statutory interpretation, is correctness:[16] It is common ground that as the sole issue on appeal raises a question of statutory interpretation, which is a question of law, it is reviewable on a standard of correctness: York Condominium Corporation No. 382 v. Jay-M Holdings Limited, 2007 ONCA 49, 84 O.R. (3d) 414, at para. 10. . Di Blasi v. York (Regional Municipality) [for case cites see the link]
In Di Blasi v. York (Regional Municipality) (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court notes that issues of statutory interpretation are issues of law, as set out in Vavilov:[3] The decision below was made under the Expropriations Act, which provides a right of appeal to this court “on a question of law or fact or both” (Expropriations Act, RSO 1990, c. E.26, s.31(1)). The standard of review is the “appellate standard” (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65). As stated in Vavilov, at para. 37:Where, for example, a court is hearing an appeal from an administrative decision, it would, in considering questions of law, including questions of statutory interpretation and those concerning scope of a decision maker’s authority, apply the standard of correctness in accordance with Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] SCR 235, at para. 8. Where the scope of the statutory appeal includes questions of fact, the appellate standard of review for those questions is palpable and overriding error (as it is for mixed questions of fact and law where the legal principle is not readily extricable) ....
|
