against the Registrants, I have no authority to consider them. For greater certainty, the
Review Board is not mandated to determine issues of trust (fiduciary duties), contract
(agency), tort (negligence, liability) or matters relating to discrimination and alleged
breaches of human rights. Raising these issues under the guise of arguing the
“reasonableness of the disposition” does not change the reality that the Review is
constrained by the law with respect to reasonableness.
[197] The Review Board assesses the reasonableness of a disposition in light of the
common law interpretation of reasonableness, the contours of which have been
established by the Vavilov: Dawson, paras. 165-166.
[198] In considering the reasonableness of the disposition of the complaint, the Review
Board is entitled to consider both the findings made by the inquiry committee and the
sanctions that it imposes: Dawson, para 192; Vavilov, para 83. Where reasons are
provided, those are the starting point for the analysis. The Review Board must pay
respectful attention and seek to understand the reasoning process followed and the
conclusions reached: Vavilov, paras 84 and 86. Reasonableness is concerned mostly
with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-
making process and with whether the decision falls within a range of possible,
acceptable outcomes defensible in respect of the facts and law: Vavilov, para 86.
[199] As noted earlier in this decision, internal legal counsel to the College sent a
document entitled, “Final Disposition Report of the Inquiry Committee” dated April 13,
2021, to the Complainant and the Registrants. However, based on my review of the
Record, including the minutes of the Inquiry Committee meetings (April 13, 2021, and
June 8, 2021), I am not satisfied that the Inquiry Committee either directed the
preparation, or reviewed either a draft or final version of the report. Accordingly, I do not
consider the report to be the Inquiry Committee’s disposition. Instead, for the purposes
of my review, I consider the Inquiry Committee minutes of the April 13, 2021, to
represent the Inquiry Committee’s decision to dispose of the complaints as it did.
[200] The Minutes of the Inquiry Committee are not as clear as they might have been
in recording the material that was before the Committee. The minutes of the April 13,
2021, meeting, list documents without explanation. The list identifies the Complainant’s
letter of complaint to the College, the Registrants’ responses to the complaint, five
supervisor evaluation reports, an email from the Complainant to external legal counsel’s
assistant (March 26, 2021) and a related reply from counsel (March 30, 2021) and the
Complainant’s “29-page supplemental response to CPSA report.” I find it reasonable to
infer that the list is meant to identify documents that were placed before the Committee
by College staff as a result of the investigation of the complaints.
[201] In response to questions that I posed at Stage 2 seeking clarification as to
whether the CPSA report was also before the Inquiry Committee, College counsel
clarified that the Inquiry Committee also had before it a “privileged memorandum” with
attachments (including the CPSA report). Legal counsel was unclear why the
memorandum was not listed as being before the Inquiry Committee. In light of the
repeated references in the minutes to the CPSA report’s “findings,” I find that the