As described in Dunsmuir at paragraph 47, a decision is reasonable if it is justifiable, transparent and intelligible, and if it falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes that are defensible in respect of the facts and law. The council’s decision with respect to use of the title “psychologist” is justifiable in that it is based on a logical, reasonable approach. It is transparent in that the council has explained its reasoning. The decision is intelligible in that it is understandable. Finally, the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes because it is not fundamentally inconsistent with the circumstances or with the provisions of the Act, the regulatory bylaws or the Code of Ethics: University of Saskatchewan v. Peng, 2013 SKQB 188, [2013] 12 W.W.R. 157 at paragraphs 30‑38.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.