Is a policy decision not to inspect at all an unassailable policy decision?

However, in Just v. British Columbia, 1989 CanLII 16 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228 at para. 22, Cory J., in providing the example of a policy decision concerning the inspection of lighthouses, stated: Thus a decision either not to inspect at all or to reduce the number of inspections may be an unassailable policy decision. This is so provided it constitutes a reasonable exercise of bona fide discretion based, for example, upon the availability of funds. [emphasis added] And at para. 29, Cory J. said: Further, it must be recalled that a policy decision is open to challenge on the basis that it is not made in the bona fide exercise of discretion. If after due consideration it is found that a duty of care is owed by the government agency and no exemption by way of statute or policy decision-making is found to exist, a traditional torts analysis ensues and the issue of standard of care required of the government agency must next be considered.