Judicial Review & Appeals Lawyer · Ontario & British Columbia
Judicial Review and Appeals Lawyers
When a government decision, tribunal ruling, or court judgment is wrong, there are legal mechanisms to challenge it. Achkar Law's judicial review lawyers act for individuals and organizations in Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, and across Ontario and British Columbia, challenging decisions by judicial review and appeal, and defending decisions under review.
Speak With a Judicial Review Lawyer
Judicial Review Lawyers · Ontario & BC
What Is Judicial Review?
Judicial review is the process by which a court supervises the decisions of administrative bodies, tribunals, and government decision-makers. Its meaning in law is distinct from an appeal: judicial review does not ask whether the decision was right, but whether the decision-maker acted within their legal authority, followed fair procedures, and reached a decision that was reasonable on the applicable legal framework.
In Ontario, judicial review applications are brought in the Divisional Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act (RSO 1990, c J.1). In British Columbia, they are brought in the BC Supreme Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act (RSBC 1996, c 241). Both provinces recognise the supervisory jurisdiction of their courts over administrative decision-makers, including regulatory bodies, professional disciplinary tribunals, labour arbitrators, licensing authorities, and government officials exercising statutory powers.
The standard of review courts apply has been governed since 2019 by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov. Vavilov set a presumption of reasonableness for most administrative decisions, meaning the court asks whether the decision is justified, transparent, and intelligible and falls within a range of acceptable outcomes, not whether it would have decided differently. A stricter correctness standard applies to constitutional questions, questions of central importance to the legal system, and true questions of jurisdictional boundaries between tribunals. Judicial review is also decided on the record that was before the original decision-maker, so new evidence is not normally admissible apart from limited exceptions going to jurisdiction or procedural fairness. A judicial review lawyer can assess whether a decision is reviewable, which standard applies, and whether the grounds for a successful application are present.
Speak With a Judicial Review Lawyer
Grounds for Review
Talk to a Judicial Review Lawyer
Grounds for Judicial Review
Not every decision a person disagrees with is subject to judicial review, and not every reviewable decision will be set aside. The strength of an application depends on which grounds are available and how clearly they are established on the facts.
Unreasonableness
The most commonly invoked ground. A decision is unreasonable where it lacks a transparent, intelligible, and justified basis, or where the outcome falls outside the range of acceptable conclusions available on the facts and the law. Courts give significant deference to the decision-maker's expertise, particularly on the interpretation of their own statute.
Procedural Fairness
Decision-makers exercising public powers owe a duty of fairness to those affected. Breaches that can support an application include failing to give adequate notice, denying a party the opportunity to be heard, deciding on evidence the party could not address, and bias or apprehended bias on the part of the decision-maker.
Jurisdictional Errors
A decision-maker who acts beyond the authority granted by their enabling legislation has exceeded their jurisdiction. Courts set aside decisions made without jurisdiction regardless of whether the outcome was otherwise reasonable, including applying the wrong legal test, considering irrelevant factors, or ignoring mandatory considerations.
Bad Faith and Improper Purpose
Decisions made in bad faith, for an improper purpose, or based on considerations irrelevant to the statutory scheme are reviewable on those grounds. These cases require evidence of the decision-maker's actual purpose and are harder to establish, but they remain available where the facts support them.
Judicial review applications have strict deadlines. In Ontario, an application must generally be brought within 30 days of the decision; in British Columbia, within 60 days. Courts can extend these periods but rarely do, so call us as soon as you receive a decision you believe is wrong.
Civil Appeals
Get Advice From a Civil Appeals Lawyer
Civil Appeals in Ontario and British Columbia
An appeal is a challenge to a court decision brought before a higher court. Unlike judicial review, which focuses on the legality and reasonableness of an administrative decision, an appeal asks whether the lower court made an error of law, an error of fact, or a mixed error that warrants the decision being overturned or varied. We act on civil appeals at every level in Ontario and BC, from Small Claims appeals through to the Court of Appeal. For province-specific steps, see our guides on appealing a legal decision in Ontario and appealing a legal decision in BC.
Grounds for Appeal
Not every unfavourable judgment can be successfully appealed. Appeals succeed where the lower court made a legal error, applied the wrong standard, misapprehended the evidence in a way that affected the outcome, or made a finding of fact that was clearly wrong. Courts of appeal give significant deference to trial judges on findings of fact, so appeals based solely on factual disagreements face a high threshold. Questions of law are reviewed on a correctness standard, meaning the appeal court will substitute its own view if it disagrees.
Appeals in Ontario
Appeals from the Superior Court of Justice generally proceed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the province's highest court below the Supreme Court of Canada. Some appeals from interlocutory orders proceed to the Divisional Court, and leave to appeal is required for certain decisions. The Court of Appeal hears both civil and commercial appeals, and its decisions on Ontario law bind all lower courts in the province.
Appeals in British Columbia
Appeals from the BC Supreme Court proceed to the BC Court of Appeal, with leave required for certain categories of decisions. The BC Court of Appeal is the province's highest court and its decisions on BC law bind all lower courts. Appeals from the BC Court of Appeal may, with leave, proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Perfecting an Appeal
An appeal begins with filing a notice of appeal within the prescribed time limit, which varies with the nature of the decision and the court. Missing the appeal deadline can permanently extinguish the right to appeal. Once filed, the appeal must be perfected by preparing the appeal record, factum, and book of authorities according to the appellate court's rules. Appellate advocacy is a specialised skill, and the quality of the written materials filed has a significant impact on the outcome.
Appeal deadlines are strict, and missing them can permanently end your right to challenge a decision. Call us as soon as you receive a judgment you believe was wrong.
Judicial Conduct
What Are the Procedures for Reviewing a Judge's Conduct?
Concerns about a judge's conduct during a proceeding are handled through different mechanisms from judicial review and appeals, and the distinction matters.
If a judge made a legal error in a decision, the appropriate mechanism is an appeal to the court above, not a complaint about conduct. Appeals address legal errors in decisions; they do not evaluate the personal conduct of the judge.
If a judge behaved improperly during proceedings, for example by making inappropriate comments, demonstrating bias, or conducting themselves in a way that calls the fairness of the proceeding into question, the appropriate avenue is a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council for federally appointed judges, or the Ontario Judicial Council or BC's provincial council for provincially appointed judges. These bodies can investigate complaints and, in serious cases, recommend removal from office.
Where a judge's conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, that issue can also be raised as a ground for appeal or judicial review of the decision itself, on the basis that the proceeding was procedurally unfair. We advise on which mechanism fits the specific concern and how to pursue it effectively.
Where Judicial Review Arises
Common Contexts for Judicial Review in Ontario and BC
Judicial review arises across a wide range of administrative and regulatory contexts. These are among the most common situations in which individuals and organizations seek review.
Professional and Regulatory Discipline
Professionals disciplined by their regulator, or who have had a licence suspended or revoked or conditions placed on their practice, may have grounds to challenge those decisions by judicial review. The standard of review depends on the nature of the decision and the governing statute.
Employment and Labour Decisions
Decisions of labour arbitrators and the Ontario and BC Labour Relations Boards are reviewable in limited circumstances. The deferential standard means review of arbitral awards succeeds less often, but unreasonableness and fairness grounds remain available. These matters often overlap with employment litigation.
Immigration and Refugee Decisions
Decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board and other federal decision-makers are subject to judicial review in the Federal Court, which has its own procedural rules and timelines distinct from provincial judicial review proceedings.
Government Licensing and Permits
Where a government body refuses to issue, suspends, or revokes a licence or permit, judicial review may be available. The grounds depend on the enabling legislation, but procedural fairness and unreasonableness are commonly engaged in these contexts.
Frequently Asked Questions
Judicial Review and Appeals: Common Questions
What is the meaning of judicial review?
Judicial review is the process by which a court supervises the decisions of administrative bodies, tribunals, and government decision-makers to ensure they acted within their legal authority, followed fair procedures, and reached a reasonable decision. It is not an appeal on the merits: the court does not ask whether the decision was correct, but whether it was lawful, procedurally fair, and reasonable. Where those requirements were not met, the court can set the decision aside and require it to be made again.
What does "under review" mean?
When a decision is described as being under review, a court or other body is examining it to determine whether it should stand, be varied, or be set aside. In administrative law, a decision under review is one challenged by a judicial review application and being assessed by the court. More broadly, the phrase can also refer to any formal reconsideration, including an internal appeal or a statutory reconsideration by the original decision-maker.
What are the time limits for judicial review in Ontario and BC?
In Ontario, an application must generally be brought within 30 days of the decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act (RSO 1990, c J.1). In British Columbia, the period is generally 60 days under the Judicial Review Procedure Act (RSBC 1996, c 241). Civil appeal deadlines are separate and often 30 days, and some tribunal statutes run faster still. Courts can extend these periods but do not do so automatically, and missing a deadline can permanently bar the challenge. Contact a judicial review lawyer promptly after receiving a decision.
What is the Vavilov standard of review?
Vavilov, from Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, is the Supreme Court of Canada decision that governs how courts review administrative decisions. The presumptive standard is reasonableness: the court asks whether the decision is justified, transparent, and intelligible and falls within a range of acceptable outcomes, not whether it agrees with the result. Correctness, where the court substitutes its own view, applies to constitutional questions, questions of central importance to the legal system, and true questions of jurisdictional boundaries between tribunals.
Can you introduce new evidence on a judicial review?
Generally no. Judicial review is decided on the record that was before the original decision-maker, because the court is reviewing the decision that was actually made on the material that was actually before it. Limited exceptions exist for evidence going to jurisdiction or procedural fairness that could not have been put before the decision-maker. The same principle applies in British Columbia.
What is the difference between judicial review and an appeal?
Judicial review supervises the decisions of administrative bodies and tribunals, asking whether the decision was lawful, procedurally fair, and reasonable, not whether it was correct. An appeal challenges a court decision in a higher court, asking whether the lower court made a legal or factual error that warrants overturning it. The two involve different courts, standards, and remedies. Which one applies depends on the nature of the decision being challenged.
Can I appeal a tribunal decision, or do I need judicial review?
It depends on the tribunal and its governing statute. Some enabling statutes provide a right of appeal from tribunal decisions to a court, in which case an appeal is appropriate. Where no statutory appeal right exists, judicial review is the available avenue. In some cases a statute provides for both an internal reconsideration and judicial review, and the order in which those remedies are pursued matters. Where a statute provides no appeal route, the courts have confirmed that judicial review remains available even on concerns that go to the merits (Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2022 ONCA 446). A judicial review lawyer can assess which mechanism applies.
What remedies are available on a successful judicial review?
Where an application succeeds, the court can quash the decision, meaning it is set aside as if it never existed, and remit the matter back to the decision-maker to be decided again in accordance with the court's reasons. In some cases the court may substitute its own decision where only one outcome is reasonable. The court can also make declarations about the parties' legal rights and, in appropriate cases, award costs.
How long does a judicial review application take?
Timelines vary with the court's schedule and the complexity of the matter. In Ontario, applications in the Divisional Court can take several months to over a year from filing to hearing, depending on the backlog and urgency. Urgent applications can be heard much faster where circumstances require. BC timelines in the Supreme Court are similarly variable. We give clients a realistic timeline for their specific matter at the outset.
Do you handle both judicial review and civil appeals?
Yes. We act on judicial review applications before the Divisional Court in Ontario and the BC Supreme Court, and on civil appeals before the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the BC Court of Appeal. Whether you are challenging a tribunal decision, an administrative ruling, or a court judgment, we advise on the appropriate mechanism and represent you through the process.
Speak With a Lawyer
Speak With a Judicial Review Lawyer
Tell us about the decision you want to challenge. Deadlines for judicial review and appeals are short, so the sooner we hear from you the more options you have. We will follow up promptly to assess your position. There is no obligation.
Call toll-free: 1-800-771-7882
Phone calls, consultations, forms, and emails sent to us do not create a lawyer-client relationship and do not constitute legal advice.