Can an applicant's office be targeted because they are not high-profile political figures?

The Applicants submit that the panel erred in finding that they could not be targeted because their political involvement was not high-profile. I agree. The panel accepted that the father was helping the opposition movement. It also accepted that a political slogan had been written in his office by vandals and that the police refused to act when he complained about this. Yet it did not mention these facts in its analysis and concluded that there was not sufficient evidence that the father was targeted for political reasons. It is not clear what other reasons there could have been for the vandalism against his office, or what kind of evidence might have persuaded the panel. Thus the panel’s reasons are not transparent and intelligible and its conclusion is, accordingly, unreasonable (Dunsmuir v. New-Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, at par. 47).