What is the legal test for the purposes of the Court of Appeal to review the decision of a Corrections Canada warden to grant a conditional discharge?

The first issue to determine is the appropriate approach to an application of this nature. This court adopts the approach elucidated by Wood J. in R v. Liu 2010 ONSC 798 (CanLII) (paragraphs 11 to 13,19 and 20); “Fundamental justice in this administrative context means fairness. To comply with this requirement a decision must not be arbitrary. The reasons for the decision must reveal the factual basis for it and not be merely conclusory [sic], and if the person affected opposes the decision the decision maker must take that person’s submissions into account. When reviewing the decision of a warden the court must take into account the circumstances surrounding it, and bear in mind the challenges inherent in administering a penal institution. Deference should be shown to the expertise of the warden making the decision and the reasons provided should not be held to the standard required of legally trained individual… The test is “were these decisions ‘fair’ when looked at in their entirety and given the circumstances in which they were made?” To meet this test: 1)They must not have been arbitrary. That is to say there must have been a reasonable explanation for their being taken. The applicant must not have been singled out, and the policies and procedures of Corrections Canada….must have been followed. 2)They must have been explained. In other words, the basis for the decisions must have been made clear to the applicant and as much evidence as possible provided to explain why the decisions were taken. While the authorities are not expected to meet the standard of judicial reasons there must be a distinction between the basis upon which each decision rests and its conclusion. 3)They must have taken into account the applicant’s version of events”.