Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care), 2013 SCC 64 deals with, among other things, whether a regulation is properly within the scope of the relevant enabling legislation:
 A successful challenge to the vires of regulations requires that they be shown to be inconsistent with the objective of the enabling statute or the scope of the statutory mandate (Guy Régimbald, Canadian Administrative Law (2008), at p. 132). This was succinctly explained by Lysyk J.:
In determining whether impugned subordinate legislation has been enacted in conformity with the terms of the parent statutory provision, it is essential to ascertain the scope of the mandate conferred by Parliament, having regard to the purpose(s) or objects(s) of the enactment as a whole. The test of conformity with the Act is not satisfied merely by showing that the delegate stayed within the literal (and often broad) terminology of the enabling provision when making subordinate legislation. The power-conferring language must be taken to be qualified by the overriding requirement that the subordinate legislation accord with the purposes and objects of the parent enactment read as a whole. (Waddell v. Governor in Council (1983), 8 Admin. L.R. 266, at p. 292)
 Regulations benefit from a presumption of validity (Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th ed. 2008), at p. 458). This presumption has two aspects: it places the burden on challengers to demonstrate the invalidity of regulations, rather than on regulatory bodies to justify them (John Mark Keyes,Executive Legislation (2nd ed. 2010), at pp. 544-50); and it favours an interpretative approach that reconciles the regulation with its enabling statute so that, where possible, the regulation is construed in a manner which renders itintra vires (Donald J. M. Brown and John M. Evans, Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada, vol. 3 (loose-leaf), at 15:3200 and 15:3230).
 Both the challenged regulation and the enabling statute should be interpreted using a "broad and purposive approach . . . consistent with this Court's approach to statutory interpretation generally" (United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta v. Calgary (City), 2004 SCC 19,  1 S.C.R. 485, at para. 8; see also Brown and Evans, at 13:1310; Keyes, at pp. 95-97; Glykis v. Hydro-Québec, 2004 SCC 60,  3 S.C.R. 285, at para. 5; Sullivan, at p. 368; Legislation Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 21, Sch. F, s. 64).
 This inquiry does not involve assessing the policy merits of the regulations to determine whether they are "necessary, wise, or effective in practice" (Jafari v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),  2 F.C. 595 (C.A.), at p. 604. As explained in Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters v. Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources) (2002), 211 D.L.R. (4th) 741 (Ont. C.A.):
. . . the judicial review of regulations, as opposed to administrative decisions, is usually restricted to the grounds that they are inconsistent with the purpose of the statute or that some condition precedent in the statute has not been observed. The motives for their promulgation are irrelevant. [para. 41]
 It is not an inquiry into the underlying "political, economic, social or partisan considerations" (Thorne's Hardware Ltd. v. The Queen,  1 S.C.R. 106, at pp. 112-13). Nor does the vires of regulations hinge on whether, in the court's view, they will actually succeed at achieving the statutory objectives (CKOY Ltd. v. The Queen,  1 S.C.R. 2, at p. 12; see also Jafari, at p. 602; Keyes, at p. 266). They must be "irrelevant", "extraneous" or "completely unrelated" to the statutory purpose to be found to be ultra vires on the basis of inconsistency with statutory purpose (Alaska Trainship Corporation v. Pacific Pilotage Authority,  1 S.C.R. 261; Re Doctors Hospital and Minister of Health (1976), 12 O.R. (2d) 164 (Div. Ct.); Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City),  1 S.C.R. 231, at p. 280; Jafari, at p. 604; Brown and Evans, at 15:3261). In effect, although it is possible to strike down regulations as ultra vires on this basis, as Dickson J. observed, "it would take an egregious case to warrant such action" (Thorne's Hardware, at p. 111).