Page: 22 balanced the statutory objectives with Charter rights and values. Where, as here, the record is silent on how the CEO considered and balanced the Charter issues, it is impossible for the Court not disclose the necessary balancing of rights and freedoms in relation to the statutory objectives. The result is a disproportionate outcome that does not protect Charter values as fully as possible in light of those statutory objectives. This is contrary to the framework outlined in Doré and Loyola, and refined in TWU. [65] Therefore, by failing to address and balance the specific Charter issues raised by the Applicants, the CEO’s decision is not justifiable, transparent, and intelligible in keeping with Dunsmuir (at para 47). Mandamus [66] The Applicants seek a mandamus order that this Court direct that the CEO recommend to the GIC that the polling date for the federal general election be changed to Monday October 28, 2019. However, having found that the decision of the CEO is unreasonable, in my view, the appropriate remedy is to remit the matter back to the CEO for reconsideration. [67] It is not the role of this Court to set the election date or to substitute its decision for that of the CEO’s, thus mandamus is not an appropriate remedy. A mandamus order can only be directed in the exercise of discretionary statutory duties where specific criteria are satisfied (Apotex Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 FC 742 (FCA), aff’d [1994] 3 SCR 1100). I 2019 FC 964 (CanLII) to determine if the balancing was proportionate (Loyola at para 68). Simply put, the record does