What is the test for judicial review of a report from the Human Rights Commission of Canada?

The counsel referred to Slattery v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) 1994 CanLII 3463 (FC), [1994] F.C.J. No. 181, paragraphs 56 and 57: Deference must be given to administrative decision-makers to assess the probative value of evidence and to decide to further investigate or not to further investigate accordingly. It should only be where unreasonable omissions are made, for example where an investigator failed to investigate obviously crucial evidence, that judicial review is warranted. (...) In contexts where parties have the legal right to make submissions in response to an investigator"s report, such as in the case at bar, parties may be able to compensate for more minor omissions by bringing such omissions to the attention of the decision maker. Therefore, it should be only where complainants are unable to rectify such omissions that judicial reviews would be warranted.