{"has_more":true,"total_items":46,"items":[{"vg_id":0,"journal":"This seems inappropriate. Even if the legislature did not set patent unreasonableness in aspic in 2004 (inasmuch as one can set the inchoate in aspic), when a common law standard is codified in this way, \"it is stated in a fixed statutory form while its substance remains the same\" 242 and the substance of patent unreasonableness could not be equated with the substance of reasonableness -it is its antithesis. As the British Columbia Court of Appeal observed of Binnie J's comments, in Khosa, they","authors":[{"author_name":" Accordingly"}]},{"vg_id":0,"published_date":2003,"journal":"• Another possibility is that patent unreasonableness should be informed by subsequent developments in the common law of judicial review","volume":239,"page_from":104,"title":"Other standards of review can be used as a foil to determine the content of patent unreasonableness. Patent unreasonableness is not reasonableness: that much is clear about its \"substance\" at the time of enactment. 237 2020 BCSC 380 at para 48. 238 2020 BCSC 91 at para 19","page_to":105},{"vg_id":0,"published_date":2008,"journal":"Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes","volume":5,"authors":[{"author_name":"Ruth Sullivan"}]},{"vg_id":0,"authors":[{"author_name":" Khosa"}]}]}