Is the adequacy of reasons sufficient to be set aside?

In Samji, the court stated that the adequacy of reasons is not a stand-alone basis upon which to set aside a decision. The reasons must be considered together with the outcome itself to determine whether the result is patently unreasonable (para. 30). The reasons should allow the reviewing court to “understand why the tribunal made its decision and permit it to determine whether the conclusion is within the range of acceptable outcomes” (para. 31). See also Hawk v. Nazareth, 2012 BCSC 211 at paras. 11-16.