Questions concerning general legislation or otherwise requiring the supervision or expertise of the courts may be found to be jurisdictional. That is, a tribunal must be correct with respect to any question that defines its jurisdiction. This Panel must determine whether the CITT correctly determined any question affecting its jurisdiction. If the tribunal incorrectly dealt with this question, this Panel must remand. If the relevant question does not affect the CITT s jurisdiction, then a different standard is applicable as the question becomes one of law, fact or mixed law and fact.
Issues of law relate to interpretations of law made by tribunals acting within their jurisdiction.
This test is very deferential and calls for a strict approach to judicial review. If the defect is apparent on the face of the Tribunal s reasons, then the Tribunal s decision is patently unreasonable. But if it takes some significant searching or testing to find the defect, then the decision is unreasonable but not patently unreasonable. This is not to say, of course, that judges reviewing a decision on the standard of patent unreasonableness may not examine the record. The analysis inherent in this test focuses upon a number of relevant factors, none of which alone are dispositive.