i may have to make some fancy arguments. and, if this goes on long enough, i may end up writing some case law.

i acknowledge that it would initially seem like the proper standard for review is reasonableness and there should be deference to the body. but, the ruling was incorrect! so, i need a way to get them to rule on the right question.

if an explicit clause written in the legislature is enough to allow for deference, you'd think an explicit clause would likewise be enough to remove it. and, 83(3) is a hard stop.

i need to go back to the fact that the adjudicator didn't mention the documents. she didn't dismiss the evidence. she just ignored it. and, you ought not to do that.

so, how can the court rule in favour of deference when the legislation is written to all but abolish discretion, and the adjudicator clearly applied too much of it, to the point of explicitly excluding imperative evidence? this would be an obvious case for a correctness review, by order of the legislature.

the problem is that i don't have the right case law, and i consequently might not get a good reaction at a lower court. this happens sometimes - a hole in the law exists, and the lower courts can't plug it without the proper ruling coming down from up top. so, the lower courts just keep putting down dumb rulings.

i get the idea behind deference. but, this is exactly the situation where they need to use correctness.

i think i'm getting some sleep.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.