Talk:Patently unreasonable

need parallel linguistic construction to describe the standards of review?

How can this article have existed since 2003 and still have a blank talk page? That must be some kind of record -- which of course I am wrecking with this edit. Anyhoo, the article describes the three standards of review as "correctness, unreasonableness, and patent unreasonableness". The problem is that the first of these specifies the level the decision under review must meet in order for the reviewing court to let the decision stand, while the other two specify the standard necessary for the court to overturn the decision. Phrasing the standards in this way makes a somewhat confusing subject even more confusing. We could get rid of this problem by calling the three standards "incorrectness, unreasonableness, and patent unreasonableness" but I've never seen the first standard referred to as "incorrectness". If it were up to me, I would describe all three standards adjectivally: "correct; reasonable; not patently unreasonable". --Mathew5000 04:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that inconsistency as well. You can definitely blame the SCC for that. Though it is confusing, it's a very well entrenched standard phrasing, both in cases and in textbooks. I do not mind your proposal, but I would expect that sooner or later that a stickler may take issue with it. --PullUpYourSocks 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I be the stickler. It is undoubtedly an internal inconsistency, but the usage by courts entirely adheres to the inconsistency. If we want to be legally correct (which is, I would think, the only kind of correct when discussing the name of a legal standard), we should use "correctness". For now, I'm making the change, since I don't know when this will be looked at again, but I won't take offense at a reversion if someone disagrees. Also, whatever the final outcome, consistency should be maintained with Standard_of_review and Canadian_administrative_law --Rumplefurskin 20:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)