Case 2: Anderson v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, [2011] O.J. No. 1503 (Div. Ct.) In Anderson, the court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the duty of decision-makers to provide adequate reasons for their decisions. The court held that the Board's decision must be supported by clear and reasoned justification, enabling the claimant to understand the basis for the ruling and effectively challenge it if necessary. Additionally, the court emphasized the need for decision-makers to consider all relevant evidence and provide claimants with a fair opportunity to present their case. Application to Jules' Judicial Review: This case supports Jules' argument that the panel's decision lacked adequate reasoning and failed to consider all relevant evidence. By refusing to allow Jules to testify about his illness and disregarding testimony from a neighbor who witnessed the incident, the panel deprived Jules of a fair opportunity to present his case and failed to provide clear and reasoned justification for their decision. Anderson v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the duty of decision-makers to provide transparent and well-supported decisions, which strengthens Jules' argument for a judicial review to rectify the errors made by the panel