Page: 12 Issues [33] The parties are largely in agreement that the sole issue is the reasonableness of the CEO’s Atzeret. [34] The Respondent also takes issue with the remedy of mandamus sought by the Applicants. Standard of Review [35] The Supreme Court of Canada has been clear that where an administrative decision engages a Charter protection, the reviewing court should apply “a robust proportionality analysis consistent with administrative law principles” (Loyola High School v Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12 [Loyola] at para 3). [36] Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12 [Doré] recognizes that the decision-maker is generally in the best position to weigh the Charter protections with his or her statutory mandate in light of the specific facts of the case (at para 54). It follows that deference is warranted when a reviewing court is determining whether the decision reflects a proportionate balance, and that there may be more than one outcome that strikes a proportionate balance between Charter protections and statutory objectives (Loyola at para 41). If the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes, it will be reasonable (Doré at para 56 citing Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 [Dunsmuir] at para 47). The traditional feature of the reasonableness 2019 FC 964 (CanLII) decision not to recommend that the election date be moved because of a conflict with Shemini