The approach to be used by a court engaged in judicial review has been described in Kenyon v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2015 BCCA 485 at para. 55 as: Judicial review judges should not parse or dissect the reasoning. In order to set aside the decision, any flaw in reasoning should be obvious and should be fundamental to the conclusion reached by the adjudicator. In reviews of roadside driving prohibitions, where credibility is frequently the central issue, judges should not substitute their own credibility findings in place of those of the adjudicator. The fact that the adjudicator’s reasoning is flawed in one respect does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the reasoning as a whole is unreasonable. It is necessary to consider the reasons as a whole and determine whether the flaw is central to the conclusion.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.