Page: 19 also provides various reasons and justifications as to why the election date cannot now be changed including costs, agreements on polling locations, accessibility concerns, logistical [56] There can be no question that the planning and organization required in advance of the federal general election is extensive and complex and all of the reasons provided as to why the date cannot be change may very well be justified. However, notwithstanding this, the CEO was required to assess the impact of the election date being in conflict with a day of “religious significance” and to consider the discretion he has been granted by Parliament pursuant to subsection 56.2(1) of the CEA. [57] The record does not disclose that the CEO gave proper, or any true consideration, to this discretion. The record does not indicate how or if the CEO “balanced” these considerations against the Charter values of Orthodox Jewish voters and candidates to ensure their rights to “meaningful participation” are respected. The CEO’s efforts were focused on advance polling and special ballot options. No consideration appears to have been given to recommending a date change. [58] On review of the reasonableness of the CEO’s decision, TWU explains that a reasonable decision is not necessarily a decision which fully protects Charter rights as follows at paragraph 81: [81] The reviewing court must consider whether there were other reasonable possibilities that would give effect to Charter protections more fully in light of the objectives. This does not mean that the administrative decision-maker must choose the 2019 FC 964 (CanLII) challenges, and, more recently, the Nunavut municipal elections.