What is the reasonableness test for a judicial review?

The reasonableness test is described in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, 2008 SCC 9 at paragraphs 47 and 49 as follows: Reasonableness is a deferential standard animated by the principle that underlies the development of the two previous standards of reasonableness: certain questions that come before administrative tribunals do not lend themselves to one specific, particular result. Instead, they may give rise to a number of possible, reasonable conclusions. Tribunals have a margin of appreciation within the range of acceptable and rational solutions. A court conducting a review for reasonableness inquires into the qualities that make a decision reasonable, referring both to the process of articulating the reasons and to outcomes. In judicial review, reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process. But it is also concerned with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law. ... Deference in the context of the reasonableness standard therefore implies that courts will give due consideration to the determinations of decision makers . . .