The applicant sought judicial review of a WSIAT decision that found he was involved in an activity reasonably incidental to his employment when injured in a motor vehicle accident during a lunch break at a remote work location.
The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable due to an inconsistent statement in the reasons and findings of fact allegedly lacking evidence.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that despite one inconsistent statement, the decision as a whole showed a clear line of reasoning, was supported by evidence, and fell within a range of reasonable outcomes.
