Standard of Review and Reasonableness After Vavilov

Under Vavilov, what is the starting point when a court selects the standard of review for the merits of an administrative decision?

Which of the following is NOT a recognized basis for correctness review after Vavilov?

The Paramedic Professions Act contains no appeal clause. If it had instead granted a statutory right of appeal to a court, what would follow?

The Committee stated it had 'no discretion' to renew, ignoring the express proviso in s 14(2). In Vavilov terms, this is best characterized as:

Priya's medical evidence and her central submission were never mentioned in the Committee's reasons. What does Vavilov say about this?

How should the reviewing court approach Priya's complaint that she was denied an in-person meeting?

The College's Guideline says members 'will ordinarily be offered an opportunity to address the Committee in person.' In Canadian law, this legitimate expectation can:

If the court finds the refusal unreasonable, what is the presumptive remedy?