Sentences with phrase «acceptable outcomes defensible»

Referring to SCC decisions of Canada v. Khosa, 2009 SCC and Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan, 2003 SCC 20 *, the C.A. held the chambers judge was required to consider whether the arbitrator's decision fell within a range of possible acceptable outcomes defensible in light of the facts and the law.

Not exact matches

ustification, transparency and intelligibility in the decision - making process, coupled with acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law, are the hallmarks of sound regulatory tribunal decisions according to the seminal decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in

Review by a court of the reasonableness of a decision made by another repository of power «is concerned mostly with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision - making process» but also with «whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law».

A review on the basis of reasonableness, applying the standard from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 («Dunsmuir»), means that the decision must fall «within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.

Although the information conveyed to the medical examiner could have biased the IME, the Court found that the Tribunal reached an acceptable and defensible outcome in finding that the accommodation process broke down because of Mr. Bottiglia.

The Supreme Court found that, in this case, the arbitrator's award was one of the possible, acceptable outcomes which were defensible in respect of the facts and law.

But it is also concerned with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.