What is the test for removing a section 96 court from the jurisdiction of a provincial statutory tribunal?

The applicants rely on Crevier v. Attorney General of Quebec et al., 1981 CanLII 30 (SCC), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220 which held that it was impermissible for a legislature to oust the inherent supervisory jurisdiction of section 96 courts. The headnote sums up the relevant facts and findings at page 221: Where a provincial legislature purports to insulate one of its statutory tribunals from any curial review of its adjudicative functions, and where that insulation encompassing jurisdiction, the legislation must be struck down as unconstitutional because it constitutes, in effect, a s. 96 court. It is unquestioned that privative clauses, when properly framed, may effectively oust judicial review on questions of law and on other issues not touching jurisdiction. However, given that s. 96 is in the British North America Act and that it would make a mockery of it to treat it in non-functional formal terms as a mere appointing power, there is nothing that is more the hallmark of a superior court than the vesting of power in a provincial statutory tribunal to determine the limits of its jurisdiction without appeal or other review. Consequently, a provincially-constituted statutory tribunal could not constitutionally be immunized from review of decisions on questions of jurisdiction.