What is the test for patent unreasonableness?

When reviewing for patent unreasonableness, the court is not to ask itself whether it is persuaded by the tribunal’s rationale for its decision; it is to merely ask whether, assessing the decision as a whole, there is any rational or tenable line of analysis supporting the decision such that the decision is not clearly irrational or, expressed in the [Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan, 2003 SCC 20]formulation, whether the decision is so flawed that no amount of curial deference can justify letting it stand. If the decision is not clearly irrational or otherwise flawed to the extreme degree described in [Ryan], it cannot be said to be patently unreasonable. This is so regardless of whether the court agrees with the tribunal’s conclusion or finds the analysis persuasive. Even if there are aspects of the reasoning which the court considers flawed or unreasonable, so long as they do not affect the reasonableness of the decision taken as a whole, the decision is not patently unreasonable.