What is the test for determining whether a decision was reasonable?

In considering whether the decision was reasonable, the following principles apply: i. the question upon review is not whether the court agrees with the conclusion; ii. as long as the conclusion is within the range of acceptable outcomes, the decision is to be treated with deference; iii. the decision itself is not open for second guessing unless the reasoning process is manifestly flawed or if the route to the decision is demonstrably unreasonable; iv. a flaw in reasoning, triggering the setting aside of an order must be obvious and fundamental to the conclusion reached by the arbitrator; and v. in considering whether the reasoning process was flawed, a reviewing court must look at the decision as a whole. Kenyon v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2015 BCCA 485 at paras. 51-57.

An adjudicator may resolve differences or conflicts in evidence by: i. giving reasons why one version is accepted; ii. giving reasons why the other version is not accepted; or iii. giving reasons why one version is preferred over the other. Clark v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2015 BCCA 487 at para. 28.