(d) Error of Law
"There is only one clear and logical point at which the line [between errors of law and errors of fact] can be drawn, and it has been recognized in many judgments. This is that questions of fact are the primary facts of the particular case which have to be established before the law can be applied, the "facts which are observed by the witnesses and proved by testimony", to which should be added any facts of common knowledge of which the court will take notice without proof. Whether these facts, once established, satisfy some legal definition or requirement is a question of law, for the question then is how to interpret and apply the law to those established facts."
Wade, Administrative Law, 4th ed., [1977], p. 775
Where a Board of Referees is alleged to have erred in law, the question of whether there was evidence upon which it could come to the conclusion it did is not relevant. The Umpire is entitled in cases of that nature to give the decision that the Board should have given.
Canada (A.G.) v. Tucker, [1986] 2 F.C. 329 (F.C.A.) A-381-85 Judgment of the federal court of appeal
[ previous Previous page | table of contents | next Next page ]
2009-04-29