# Standard of Review Analysis — Blank Template

For each ground of review, select and apply the appropriate standard.

```
GROUND: [description]

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

STEP 1 — TYPE OF QUESTION

The question raised by this ground is:
  [ ] Finding of fact
  [ ] Exercise of discretion
  [ ] Interpretation of home statute
  [ ] Interpretation of external statute
  [ ] Constitutional question
  [ ] General question of law of central importance
  [ ] Jurisdictional boundary
  [ ] Procedural fairness
  [ ] Other: _______________

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

STEP 2 — STATUTORY STANDARD

Does a statute prescribe the standard?

  [ ] YES — ATA s.58(2)(a) applies (fact / discretion → PU)
  [ ] YES — ATA s.58(2)(b) applies (___ → ___)
  [ ] YES — Other statute: _______________ (standard: _______________)
  [ ] NO — proceed to Vavilov analysis

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

STEP 3 — VAVILOV ANALYSIS (if no statutory standard)

Correctness category applies?
  [ ] Constitutional — YES / NO
  [ ] General question of central importance — YES / NO
  [ ] Jurisdictional boundary — YES / NO
  [ ] Statutory right of appeal — YES / NO
  [ ] Legislatively prescribed correctness — YES / NO

If YES to any: correctness applies.
If NO to all: reasonableness applies (presumptive).

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

STEP 4 — STANDARD SELECTED

Standard:
  [ ] Correctness
  [ ] Reasonableness (Vavilov)
  [ ] Patent unreasonableness (ATA s.58)
  [ ] Procedural fairness (Baker analysis)

Source of standard: _______________

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

STEP 5 — APPLYING THE STANDARD

CORRECTNESS APPLICATION (if applicable):
  What is the correct answer to the question?
  [analysis showing the correct answer]

  How did the tribunal answer?
  [tribunal's answer]

  Was the tribunal correct?
  [yes / no with reasoning]

REASONABLENESS APPLICATION (if applicable):
  Was the decision transparent, intelligible, and justified?

  Legal constraints:
    [statute, common law, applicable authorities]
  Did the decision respect them? [yes / no]

  Factual constraints:
    [the record, findings, evidence]
  Did the decision respect them? [yes / no]

  Reasons responsive to central submissions?
    [yes / no with specifics]

  Outcome within acceptable range?
    [yes / no with reasoning]

  Conclusion on reasonableness: [reasonable / unreasonable]

PATENT UNREASONABLENESS APPLICATION (if applicable):
  Threshold: no reasonable tribunal could reach this result

  Is the decision without evidentiary support?
    [analysis]

  Is the finding one no reasonable tribunal could make?
    [analysis]

  Is the legal reasoning so defective no reasonable tribunal could
  adopt it?
    [analysis]

  Conclusion: patently unreasonable? [yes / no]

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

STEP 6 — CONNECTING TO REMEDY

If the standard is not met:
  Remedy sought: [set aside / remit / declare]
  Direction sought (if remitting): [specifics]

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

INTEGRATION WITH OTHER GROUNDS

Where multiple grounds are pleaded, note:
  - Grounds under different standards should be argued separately
  - Do not conflate correctness arguments with reasonableness arguments
  - Prioritize the strongest ground(s)
```