The Narrowing Scope of Appellate Review: Has the Pendulum Swung Too Far?

JUTRAS, D., “The Narrowing Scope of Appellate Review: Has the Pendulum Swung Too Far?”, (2007) 32 Manitoba L.J. 61-77

19 Pages Posted: 10 Aug 2016

See all articles by Daniel Jutras

Daniel Jutras

McGill University - Faculty of Law

Date Written: August 8, 2016

Abstract

In every Western jurisdiction, there are two competing conceptions of appellate review. The interventionist conception of appellate review allows appeal courts to readily correct errors on any issue other than those that are tied to the trial judge’s situation advantage. The deferential conception of appellate review allows appeal judges to intervene only when there are capricious judgments or egregious errors on any issues other than pure questions of law. With these conceptions in mind, the author reviews the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Housen, arguing that it effected a significant change to the appellate standard of review in Canada. Through a detailed analysis of its conclusions, the author determines that Housen offers a defensible, workable compromise between the two conceptions of appellate review that is no less indeterminate than the alternatives.

Suggested Citation

Jutras, Daniel, The Narrowing Scope of Appellate Review: Has the Pendulum Swung Too Far? (August 8, 2016). JUTRAS, D., “The Narrowing Scope of Appellate Review: Has the Pendulum Swung Too Far?”, (2007) 32 Manitoba L.J. 61-77, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2820159 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2820159

Daniel Jutras (Contact Author)

McGill University - Faculty of Law ( email )

3644 Peel Street
Montreal H3A 1W9, Quebec
Canada

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
30
Abstract Views
288
PlumX Metrics