Although, as Dyzenhaus has argued, a justification - based approach to reasonableness is not necessarily more intrusive than the traditional Wednesbury approach, the effect of Li seems to have been to increase judicial
scrutiny of administrative decisions in at least some cases.
The courts are reluctant to allow
administrative bodies the broad power to say that their
decisions are final and not open to the
scrutiny of a judge.
While punting issues to the membership may be appropriate where the
decision involves matters
of policy (say, in establishing a rule on how many hours
of CPD time lawyers are required to obtain or in approving new rules
of professional conduct or bylaws) rather than
administrative decisins involving a weighing
of Charter values, in these sort
of circumstances, it's hard to see how the
decision in BC or NB can survive judicial
scrutiny (even if one doesn't believe that the earlier SCC decisionin TWU doesn't govern).