exercise of discretion since nothing in the New Regulation
requires a manufacturer to provide “compelling reasons” to support the maintenance of VQAO wine approvals.
 To the extent that the Applicant is alleging that the VQAO
improperly exercised its discretion under the New Regulation,
it is not an issue it can raise on this judicial review. Section 6(4) of
the Act provides a manufacturer with the right to a hearing; s. 8
of O. Reg. 405/00 designates the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the
“LAT”) as the tribunal to hold the hearing. The Applicant did not
exercise its right to appeal to the LAT and, having failed to do so,
cannot now seek judicial review of the VQAO’s previously unchallenged exercise of its discretion.
 With respect to its submission that the New Regulation is
ultra vires, all parties agree that the Supreme Court of Canada’s
decision in Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Health and Long-
Term Care),  3 S.C.R. 810,  S.C.J. No. 64, 2013
SCC 64 sets out the principles that must govern a judicial review
on this basis. In particular:
(a) A successful challenge to the vires of a regulation requires
that it be shown to be inconsistent with the objective of the
enabling statute or the scope of the statutory mandate.
(b) The regulation must be “irrelevant”, “extraneous” or “
completely unrelated” to the statutory purpose to be found to
be ultra vires on the basis of inconsistency with statutory
(c) The regulation is presumed to be valid and the onus is on the
Applicant to demonstrate that it is not.
(d) This presumption of validity favours an interpretive
approach that reconciles the regulation with its enabling
statute so that, where possible, the regulation is construed in
a manner which renders it intra vires.
(e) Both the challenged regulation and the enabling statute
should be interpreted using a “broad and purposive
(f) Neither the policy merits of the regulation, nor the question
of whether it will actually succeed at achieving the statutory
objectives are relevant considerations.
(g) The motives for enacting the regulation are irrelevant. Cabinet need not justify its reasoning.
 One of the bases upon which the Applicant is attacking the
New Regulation amounts to an attack on Cabinet’s motive for