What is the test for giving reasons at an administrative tribunal?

A case urged upon me by the City, Clifford v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2009 ONCA 670, leave to appeal to the SCC dismissed [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 461, offers further guidance: 25 Where an applicant for judicial review argues that an administrative tribunal with a legal obligation to give reasons for its decision has failed to do so, how is the court to determine if this obligation has been complied with? 26 In the rare case where nothing is offered by the tribunal to support its decision, the question is readily answered in the negative. Where something is offered, the task is to determine whether, in the context of the particular case, this constitutes reasons sufficient to meet the tribunal's legal obligation. ... 29 R.E.M. emphasizes that where reasons are legally required, their sufficiency must be assessed functionally. In the context of administrative law, reasons must be sufficient to fulfill the purposes required of them, particularly to let the individual whose rights, privileges or interests are affected know why the decision was made and to permit effective judicial review. As R.E.M. held at para. 17, this is accomplished if the reasons, read in context, show why the tribunal decided as it did. The basis of the decision must be explained and this explanation must be logically linked to the decision made. This does not require that the tribunal refer to every piece of evidence or set out every finding or conclusion in the process of arriving at the decision. To paraphrase for the administrative law context what the court says in R.E.M. at para. 24, the "path" taken by the tribunal to reach its decision must be clear from the reasons read in the context of the proceeding, but it is not necessary that the tribunal describe every landmark along the way. 30 R.E.M. also emphasizes that the assessment of whether reasons are sufficient to meet the legal obligation must pay careful attention to the circumstances of the particular case. That is, read in the context of the record and the live issues in the proceeding, the fundamental question is whether the reasons show that the tribunal grappled with the substance of the matter: see R.E.M. at para. 43. 31 In addition, in my view, it is important to differentiate the task of assessing the adequacy of reasons given by an administrative tribunal from the task of assessing the substantive decision made. A challenge on judicial review to the sufficiency of reasons is a challenge to an aspect of the procedure used by the tribunal. The court must assess the reasons from a functional perspective to see if the basis for the decision is intelligible. 32 This is to be distinguished from a challenge on judicial review to the outcome reached by the tribunal. That may require the court to examine not only the decision but the reasoning offered in support of it from a substantive perspective. Depending on the applicable standard of review, the court must determine whether the outcome and the reasoning supporting it are reasonable or correct. That is a very different task from assessing the sufficiency of the reasons in a functional sense.