In judicial review, how are questions of law and fact typically treated?

In judicial review, how are questions of law and fact typically treated?

• A. Questions of law are reviewed for reasonableness and correctness; factual findings receive deference
• B. Questions of law and fact are both reviewed de novo
• C. Factual findings are reviewed for correctness; questions of law receive no deference
• D. There is no standard review in administrative law cases

Answer: (A)

In judicial review, the court uses different standards depending on whether the issue is a question of law or a question of fact. Questions of law are checked for correctness to ensure the legal interpretation and application are sound and consistent with statutes and precedents. At the same time, factual findings—the tribunal’s determinations about what happened and what the evidence shows—are given deference; the court will not substitute its own view of the facts if the decision is reasonably supported by the record. This combination reflects respect for the tribunal’s factual judgment while maintaining accuracy in legal interpretation. The other options either imply reweighing facts or deny any standard of review, which don’t fit how judicial review actually works.

In judicial review, the court uses different standards depending on whether the issue is a question of law or a question of fact. Questions of law are checked for correctness to ensure the legal interpretation and application are sound and consistent with statutes and precedents. At the same time, factual findings—the tribunal’s determinations about what happened and what the evidence shows—are given deference; the court will not substitute its own view of the facts if the decision is reasonably supported by the record. This combination reflects respect for the tribunal’s factual judgment while maintaining accuracy in legal interpretation. The other options either imply reweighing facts or deny any standard of review, which don’t fit how judicial review actually works.