# Discretion Review — Blank Template

For reviewing a discretionary administrative decision.

```
DECISION-MAKER: [tribunal / authority]
DECISION: [what was decided]
DISCRETION EXERCISED: [what authority the decision-maker relied on]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

STEP 1 — SOURCE AND SCOPE OF DISCRETION

Statutory source: [specific section]

The statute grants discretion to:
  [describe the scope of the discretion]

The discretion is:
  [ ] Unfettered (broad, few statutory constraints)
  [ ] Structured (statute specifies factors or purposes)
  [ ] Narrow (limited categories or conditions)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

STEP 2 — RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS

The statute (or case law) identifies relevant considerations:
  1. [factor]
  2. [factor]
  3. [factor]

Did the decision-maker consider each? [YES / NO for each]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

STEP 3 — IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS

Did the decision-maker consider factors NOT authorized by the statute?
  1. [factor and where it appears in the reasons]
  2. [factor and where it appears in the reasons]

If yes, this is potentially a reviewable error.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

STEP 4 — FETTERING OF DISCRETION

Did the decision-maker apply a policy or guideline rigidly, without
considering the specific case?

Signals of fettering:
  [ ] Bold statement of policy without individual analysis
  [ ] Refusal to consider exceptions
  [ ] Treating a guideline as binding
  [ ] Formulaic reasoning without case-specific reasoning

Analysis: [was there fettering?]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

STEP 5 — SUB-DELEGATION

Was the discretion sub-delegated to someone else?

  [ ] The statute permits delegation — no issue
  [ ] Routine administrative sub-delegation only — usually no issue
  [ ] Substantive decision was made by someone other than the
      statutory decision-maker — potentially reviewable

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

STEP 6 — IMPROPER PURPOSE

Was the discretion exercised for a purpose the statute authorized?

The purpose of this statutory power is:
  [purpose from the statute or case law]

The decision-maker's apparent purpose:
  [what the reasons show]

Was the exercise for an authorized purpose? [analysis]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

STEP 7 — BAD FAITH

Any evidence the discretion was exercised in bad faith?
  [ ] Malice
  [ ] Ulterior motive
  [ ] Dishonesty
  [ ] Other bad faith indicator

Evidence: [specifics]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

STEP 8 — REASONABLENESS OF THE RESULT

Even if the process was proper, was the resulting decision within the
range of reasonable outcomes?

Analysis:
  [reasoning about whether the outcome was reasonable]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

STEP 9 — APPLICABLE STANDARD

For BC tribunals under ATA s.58, discretionary decisions attract
patent unreasonableness. So:

  For each error identified above, ask: was it patently unreasonable?

  The threshold is: no reasonable decision-maker could have made this
  choice.

  For fettering, improper purpose, and bad faith, the errors themselves
  may satisfy this threshold.

  For consideration of irrelevant factors, the question is materiality
  — did the irrelevant factor materially affect the decision?

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

STEP 10 — REMEDY

If discretion was improperly exercised:
  [ ] Set aside the decision
  [ ] Remit for proper exercise of discretion
  [ ] Direct specific considerations to be made on remit

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

CONSTRUCTING THE ARGUMENT

Ground:
  The [decision-maker] failed to properly exercise the discretion under
  [statute] because [primary error].

Standard:
  [Patent unreasonableness under ATA s.58 / other applicable standard]

Application:
  [Show that the error meets the standard]

Remedy:
  [Set aside / remit / declare]
```