Parenteau said the explanation that WOTUS failed to give enough consideration to states» rights is not «reasoned» because WOTUS did discuss state roles and because the proposed repeal does not explain how a potential
lack of consideration affected the resulting regulation and would justify repealing it.
The motion judge made several key findings
of fact: (i) there was no evidence the appellant's fall was caused by any defect in or
lack of repair
affecting the premises or any hazardous conditions associated with the premises themselves; (ii) there was no dispute the appellant was performing the renovation work for valuable
consideration; (iii) there was no basis for a contractual claim that the respondents had failed to furnish the appellant with safety equipment; (iv) there was no evidence the appellant was inexperienced in performing roofing work or working at heights; and (v) the evidence did not support a finding that the respondents were aware the appellant
lacked the necessary experience to carry out the project.