the beginning of the VQAO system in Ontario in 2000, the VQAO
has been of the view that it does and has accordingly considered
wines for approval against those implicit shared standards.
 In West Fraser Mills Ltd. v. British Columbia (Workers’
Compensation Appeal Tribunal),  1 S.C.R. 635,  S.C.J.
No. 22, 2018 SCC 22, at para. 9, McLachlin C.J.C. (writing for the
majority) cautions that deference is owed when a court is reviewing the decisions of a subordinate authority that has been given
large discretion under its enabling statute to craft an appropriate
regulatory regime. As confirmed by her, that deference appropriately “recognizes the reality that, in many instances, those working day to day in the implementation of frequently complex
administrative schemes have or will develop a considerable expertise or field sensitivity to the imperatives or nuances of the legislative regime” (citation omitted for the quote). Thus, the VQAO’s
view that there are shared implicit standards that cannot be fully
articulated in the Quality Rules, but that can be measured
through a sensory evaluation is one that is entitled to deference
from this court.
 Section 3(4) of the Quality Rules (which did receive Ministerial approval) contains a general prohibition that “[n]o person
shall use a term, description or designation or name on a label or
container of wine that may mislead the consumer as to the quality, content or origin of the wine”. Taste is the medium by which
consumers experience wine. Therefore, it is reasonable for the
VQAO to use a means for deciding whether a particular wine
should get approved that ensures that there is an accurate link
between the reserved terms and taste, even when the accuracy is
based on implicit shared understanding of the meaning of the
reserved terms in the wine industry, instead of being subject to
codification in regulations.
Is the taste test requirement ultra vires the VQAO’s authority?
 This challenge is a broader challenge to the taste test
requirement than the one I have just dealt with. The point that
I have just made about deference continues to apply.
 In its factum, the Applicant took the position that the taste
test requirement was not necessary to accomplish the objectives
of the Act and that it involved a process that was unduly subjective. As such it could result in consequences that were unfair
and potentially antithetical to the purposes of the Act. In oral
submissions, this argument was reframed and the Applicant
submitted that the taste test was incapable of furthering the
objectives of the Act.