Thus, an appellate court reviews the findings of fact of the
Board and the Board’s application of the law to the facts to the
standard of reasonableness. To be reasonable, a decision must
withstand a probing examination. It must satisfy the requirements for justification, transparency and intelligibility within the
decision-making process.10 A reasonable decision must fall within
a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in
respect of the facts and law.11
 The reasonableness standard shows deference to the relative
expertise of the Board members who are likely to have acquired
experience over the course of their appointments in dealing with
assessments of capacity and are uniquely positioned to hear the viva
voce evidence of the parties. If the Board’s decision, however, is
unreasonable, then it should be set aside. An unreasonable decision
is one that is not supported by any reasons that can stand up to
a somewhat probing examination. If the Board’s decision is within
the range of conclusions that could reasonably have been reached
on the law and evidence, the decision should be affirmed.
 Decisions of the Board on questions of law are reviewed on
a standard of correctness.12
 Decisions of the Board on matters of procedural fairness
are reviewed to a standard of correctness.13 However, administrative tribunals are shown a margin of deference in determining
what is the scope of procedural fairness in the context of a particular proceeding.14 Put somewhat differently, there is a range or
10 Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, supra, at para. 47; Giecewicz v. Hastings,
supra, at para. 13; Jemmison v. Ohene-Darkoh,  O.J. No. 3124, 2016
ONSC 3549 (S.C.J.), at para. 10; P. (D.) v. Betlen,  O.J. No. 3893, 2015
ONSC 4442 (S.C.J.), at para. 12.
11 Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, supra, at para. 47.
12 Starson v. Swayze,  1 S.C.R. 722,  S.C.J. No. 33, 2003 SCC 32,
at paras. 5, 10; Salem v. Kantor,  O.J. No. 6831, 2016 ONSC 7130
(S.C.J.), at paras. 9-16; Doherty v. Horowitz, supra, at paras. 27-30; J. (R.) v.
Zalan,  O.J. No. 1792, 2016 ONSC 2337 (S.C.J.), at para. 89;
Gajewski v. Wilkie (2014), 123 O.R. (3d) 481,  O.J. No. 6026, 2014 ONCA
897, at para. 33; Puri v. Papatheodorou,  O.J. No. 2231, 2013 ONSC
2537 (S.C.J.), at paras. 54-58.
13 Mission Institution v. Khela,  1 S.C.R. 502,  S.C.J. No. 24, 2014
SCC 24, at para. 79; Rogers Communications Partnership v. Ontario
(Energy Board),  O.J. No. 6437, 2016 ONSC 7810 (Div. Ct.); V. (W.) v.
Strike,  O.J. No. 972, 2018 ONSC 1263 (S.C.J.), at paras. 19-26.
14 Rogers Communications Partnership v. Ontario (Energy Board), supra,
at para. 18; Sound v. Fitness Industry Council of Canada,  F.C.J.
No. 215, 2014 FCA 48, at para. 42; V. (W.) v. Strike, supra, at paras. 19-26.