What is the test for a review of a decision of patent unreasonableness?

Therefore, in the review of the board’s decision on the standard of patent unreasonableness a reviewing judge must keep in mind that even though the board may not have provided the collective agreement with what he or she considers to be the correct or indeed the “best” interpretation, unless it is immediately obvious the board considered irrelevant factors, wrongly applied relevant factors or gave the words of the collective agreement a meaning they cannot reasonably bear, a reviewing judge has no jurisdiction to intervene. There must be, on the patently unreasonable standard of review, a compelling reason for a court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Throughout a review conducted on this standard, a reviewing judge must be careful not to allow his or her reasoning to be overtaken by an exercise which engages the judge in a comparison between the interpretation given by the board and the interpretation the reviewing judge might consider to be correct or, an interpretation he or she might consider to be better than the one provided by the board. The reviewing judge must exercise an extremely high degree of deferential self-discipline and be prepared to accept that a decision is reasonable even if the reviewing judge would not have reasoned or would not have come to the same conclusion as the tribunal. See: Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan supra at para. 46.