Close-up of the engraved crown and "Court House" inscription on the facade of 361 University Avenue in Toronto, representing judicial review and appellate proceedings in Ontario

Judicial Review vs Appeal in Ontario and BC: Which Process Applies to Your Situation

Date: September 11, 2025

Receiving an adverse decision from a court, tribunal, or administrative body raises an immediate question: how do you challenge it, and through which process? An appeal and a judicial review are both mechanisms for challenging decisions, but they serve fundamentally different purposes, operate under different rules, and require different things to succeed. Filing the wrong challenge not only wastes time and cost: it can permanently foreclose the right to pursue the correct one.

This article explains the difference between judicial review and an appeal in Ontario and BC, when each process is available, the standard of review courts apply to administrative decisions under the Vavilov framework, the time limits that apply in each province, and how to assess which route fits your situation. For our detailed guides to the specific processes in each province, see our posts on appealing a legal decision in Ontario and appealing a legal decision in BC.

The core distinction
An appeal asks whether the decision was correct. Judicial review asks whether the process was fair, whether the decision-maker had authority, and whether the decision was reasonable. Choosing between them is not a matter of preference: it depends on what type of decision was made, what grounds you are challenging, and what the governing legislation provides.

Appeals require a statutory right to appeal. Judicial review is available where there is no adequate statutory appeal and the decision was made by a public body or administrative tribunal exercising a public function. Where both are technically available, the governing legislation and the nature of the challenge determine which is the appropriate route.

What is judicial review?

Judicial review is a supervisory jurisdiction exercised by superior courts over administrative decision-makers, tribunals, and government bodies. It does not ask whether the court would have decided differently: it asks whether the decision-maker acted within their jurisdiction, followed a fair process, and reached a decision that falls within the range of reasonable outcomes.

In Ontario, judicial review applications are brought before the Divisional Court of the Superior Court of Justice under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c J.1. In BC, they are brought in BC Supreme Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSBC 1996, c 241. The standard of review applied in both provinces follows the framework established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.

No new evidence is normally admissible on judicial review. The court reviews the record that was before the original decision-maker and assesses the decision on that basis. The court is not conducting a new hearing on the merits: it is reviewing whether the process and the outcome meet the applicable legal standards.

What is an appeal?

An appeal is a direct challenge to whether a decision was correct. Unlike judicial review, an appeal asks the appellate court to reconsider the outcome itself: to substitute its own decision for the one being challenged, or to send the matter back for a new determination. Appeals require a statutory right to appeal. Without a provision in the governing legislation conferring a right of appeal, no appeal is available.

In Ontario, appeals from final orders of the Superior Court of Justice go to the Ontario Court of Appeal under the Courts of Justice Act. In BC, appeals from final orders of the BC Supreme Court go to the BC Court of Appeal under the Court of Appeal Act. Many tribunal decisions have their own specific appeal routes prescribed by the governing legislation.

The standard of review on appeal depends on the nature of the error. Questions of law from courts are reviewed on a correctness standard. Findings of fact receive significant deference: the appellant must show a palpable and overriding error. Mixed questions of fact and law are reviewed on a correctness standard only where an extricable error of law can be identified.

Judicial review vs appeal: the key differences

Judicial review

  • Asks whether the process was fair, jurisdiction was proper, and the decision was reasonable
  • Available where there is no adequate statutory right of appeal
  • Court does not substitute its own view on the merits
  • No new evidence normally admissible
  • Ontario: 30 days from decision under Judicial Review Procedure Act
  • BC: 60 days from decision under Judicial Review Procedure Act
  • Standard: reasonableness (Vavilov) for most decisions; correctness for constitutional questions

Appeal

  • Asks whether the decision was correct in law or fact
  • Requires a statutory right of appeal in the governing legislation
  • Appellate court can substitute its own decision
  • Limited new evidence possible in some contexts
  • Ontario Superior Court to Court of Appeal: 30 days
  • BC Supreme Court to Court of Appeal: 30 days
  • Standard: correctness for questions of law; palpable and overriding error for findings of fact

The Vavilov standard of review framework

The standard of review applied by courts on judicial review in Canada is governed by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. The Vavilov framework applies in both Ontario and BC and has significantly clarified how courts approach administrative decisions.

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65

The Supreme Court of Canada established a presumption that the standard of review for most administrative decisions is reasonableness. Under the reasonableness standard, the reviewing court asks whether the decision is justified, transparent, and intelligible, and whether it falls within the range of acceptable outcomes given the legal and factual constraints that bear on the decision. The court does not ask whether it would have decided differently.

Correctness applies in three categories: constitutional questions, questions of central importance to the legal system as a whole, and true questions of jurisdictional boundaries between administrative bodies. Where correctness applies, the court owes no deference to the decision-maker and will substitute its own view if it disagrees with the legal analysis.

Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2022 ONCA 446

The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that where legislation does not provide a right of appeal, judicial review remains available even where the applicant's concerns go to the merits of the decision. The decision reinforces that the absence of a statutory appeal route does not leave a party without recourse: judicial review provides the supervisory mechanism where the Legislature has not created an appeal. This is an important practical point for parties dealing with tribunal decisions where the governing statute is silent on appeals.

When judicial review is the right path

No statutory right of appeal exists Where the governing legislation does not provide a right of appeal from the decision, judicial review is the available mechanism to challenge it. This is common with many provincial and federal administrative tribunal decisions where the legislature has deliberately limited review to the judicial review route.
The process was procedurally unfair Where the decision-maker denied natural justice by failing to give the party notice, an opportunity to be heard, or reasons, judicial review based on procedural unfairness is appropriate. This ground does not require showing that a different outcome would have resulted: procedural unfairness can be grounds for setting aside the decision regardless of the merits.
The decision-maker acted outside their jurisdiction Where the decision-maker made a decision they had no authority to make, or failed to exercise a jurisdiction they were required to exercise, judicial review on jurisdictional grounds is available. This includes situations where a tribunal applied the wrong legal test or misconstrued the scope of its own enabling legislation.
The decision is unreasonable under the Vavilov framework Where the decision is not justified, transparent, or intelligible, or does not fall within the range of acceptable outcomes given the legal and factual constraints, judicial review on reasonableness grounds is available. This is the most commonly invoked ground in modern Canadian administrative law and requires careful analysis of the reasons given by the decision-maker.

When an appeal is the right path

The governing legislation provides a right of appeal Where the statute governing the decision expressly provides a right of appeal, that is the correct mechanism. Using judicial review where a statutory appeal exists may result in the judicial review being dismissed on the basis that an adequate alternative remedy is available.
The decision contains an error of law Where the decision-maker applied the wrong legal test, misinterpreted a statute, failed to follow binding precedent, or reached a legal conclusion no reasonable application of the law could support, an appeal on a question of law is the appropriate challenge. Questions of law from lower courts are reviewed on a correctness standard.
A finding of fact is clearly wrong Where a finding of fact is palpably wrong and that error overrode the outcome, an appeal on a factual ground is available. The threshold is demanding: findings open on the evidence will not be disturbed on appeal even if the appellate court might have decided differently.
You want the court to substitute its own decision Judicial review rarely results in the reviewing court substituting its own decision on the merits. Where you want a final decision on the substance, not just a remit back for reconsideration, an appeal is generally more likely to achieve that outcome where a statutory right of appeal exists.

Received an adverse decision in Ontario or BC and not sure whether to appeal or apply for judicial review?

In Ontario, judicial review applications must be filed within 30 days of the decision. In BC, within 60 days. Appeal deadlines vary by the governing statute but are often 30 days. Filing the wrong challenge can permanently close the door on the right one. Get legal advice on the applicable route and deadline today.

Call: 1-800-771-7882 Find Out Which Process Applies to Your Decision

Time limits: Ontario and BC compared

Both provinces impose strict time limits for challenging administrative decisions, and missing them can permanently bar the challenge. The specific deadline depends on the type of decision and the governing legislation.

  • Ontario judicial review: 30 days from the decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c J.1, though courts have discretion to extend this in appropriate circumstances
  • BC judicial review: 60 days from the decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSBC 1996, c 241, though courts retain discretion to extend
  • Ontario Court of Appeal from Ontario Superior Court: 30 days from the order
  • BC Court of Appeal from BC Supreme Court: 30 days from the order under Rule 9(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules
  • Tribunal statutory appeals: vary by governing legislation, often 30 days or less, and some have notice requirements that run even faster

Extensions of time are available in both provinces but are not routinely granted. Courts consider the length of the delay, the reason for it, prejudice to the other party, and the merits of the proposed challenge. The safest approach is always to get legal advice on the applicable deadline immediately after receiving the decision.

Facing an adverse tribunal or court decision in Ontario or BC and trying to understand your options?

Whether the right route is an appeal, a judicial review, or neither, the answer depends on the specific decision, the governing legislation, and what grounds you are seeking to advance. Get a clear assessment before the deadline closes the door.

Get a Clear Assessment of Your Options Or call us: 1-800-771-7882

Practical takeaways

Appeals ask whether the decision was correct in law or fact. Judicial review asks whether the process was fair, the decision-maker had jurisdiction, and the decision was reasonable. They are different remedies for different purposes.
Appeals require a statutory right to appeal. Judicial review is available where there is no adequate statutory appeal and the decision was made by a public body or tribunal exercising a public function.
The Vavilov framework governs the standard of review on judicial review across Canada. The presumptive standard is reasonableness. Correctness applies to constitutional questions and questions of central legal importance.
Ontario judicial review applications must be filed within 30 days of the decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act. BC applications must be filed within 60 days. Appeal deadlines vary by the governing statute but are typically 30 days.
New evidence is not normally admissible on judicial review. The court reviews the record that was before the original decision-maker. Appeals also generally proceed on the existing record, with limited exceptions.
Filing the wrong challenge can permanently close the door on the right one. Where both judicial review and appeal are theoretically available, the governing legislation and the nature of the grounds determine which is appropriate. Get legal advice on the correct route immediately.

Frequently asked questions

What is judicial review in Ontario?

Judicial review is brought before the Divisional Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c J.1, and must generally be filed within 30 days of the decision. The court reviews whether the decision-maker had jurisdiction, followed a fair process, and reached a decision within the range of reasonable outcomes. It does not re-argue the case or substitute the court's view for the decision-maker's on the merits.

What is judicial review in BC?

In BC, judicial review applications are brought in BC Supreme Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSBC 1996, c 241, generally within 60 days of the decision. The standard of review follows the Vavilov framework: reasonableness for most discretionary decisions and correctness for constitutional questions and true jurisdictional boundaries.

What is the difference between judicial review and an appeal?

An appeal directly challenges whether the decision was correct and asks the appellate court to substitute its own decision. Judicial review challenges whether the process was fair, the decision-maker had jurisdiction, and the decision was reasonable, without asking the reviewing court to substitute its view on the merits. Appeals require a statutory right to appeal. Judicial review is available where there is no adequate statutory appeal.

What is the Vavilov standard of review?

Established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, the presumptive standard for most administrative decisions is reasonableness: the reviewing court asks whether the decision is justified, transparent, and intelligible and falls within the range of acceptable outcomes. Correctness applies to constitutional questions and questions of central importance to the legal system. The framework binds courts in both Ontario and BC.

What are the time limits for judicial review in Ontario and BC?

In Ontario, 30 days from the decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act. In BC, 60 days under the Judicial Review Procedure Act. Both provinces give courts discretion to extend but extensions are not routinely granted. Missing the deadline can permanently bar the challenge. Get legal advice on the applicable deadline immediately after receiving an adverse decision.

Can you introduce new evidence on a judicial review?

Generally no. Judicial review is decided on the record before the original decision-maker. Limited exceptions exist for evidence going to jurisdiction or procedural fairness where the evidence could not have been put before the original decision-maker. The same principle applies in BC judicial review proceedings.

Received an adverse decision in Ontario or BC and not sure whether to appeal or apply for judicial review? Tell us what's happening.

Whether you are dealing with a tribunal decision, a regulatory ruling, or a court order you want to challenge, Achkar Law advises businesses and individuals across Ontario and British Columbia on judicial review and appeals. We will assess the correct route, the applicable deadline, and the realistic prospects of success before you commit to either process.

Call us at 1-800-771-7882 or fill out the form below and we will be in touch.