Judicial Review and Appeals
When a government decision, tribunal ruling, or court judgment is wrong, there are legal mechanisms to challenge it. Judicial review allows parties to challenge the decisions of administrative bodies and tribunals. Appeals allow parties to challenge court decisions on questions of law or fact. Our judicial review lawyers act for individuals and organizations in Ontario and British Columbia who need to challenge a decision or defend one that is under review.
Speak With a Judicial Review LawyerWhat 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 given the applicable legal framework.
In Ontario, judicial review applications are brought in the Divisional Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act. In BC, they are brought in the BC Supreme Court. Both provinces recognize the supervisory jurisdiction of their respective courts over administrative decision-makers, including regulatory bodies, professional disciplinary tribunals, labour arbitrators, licensing authorities, and government officials exercising statutory powers.
The scope of judicial review in Ontario and BC has been shaped significantly by the Supreme Court of Canada's framework for reviewing administrative decisions. Courts assess whether a decision was reasonable, meaning whether it falls within a range of acceptable outcomes defensible on the facts and the law. For certain questions, including those involving the decision-maker's legal jurisdiction or procedural fairness obligations, the standard of review may be more demanding.
A judicial review lawyer can assess whether a decision is reviewable, which standard of review applies, and whether the grounds for a successful application are present in your situation.
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 a judicial review application depends on which grounds are available and how clearly they are established on the facts.
Unreasonableness
The most commonly invoked ground of judicial review is unreasonableness. 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 applying this standard give significant deference to the decision-maker's expertise, particularly where the decision involves the interpretation of the decision-maker's own statute or a matter within their specialized domain.
Procedural Fairness
Decision-makers exercising public powers owe a duty of procedural fairness to those affected by their decisions. The content of that duty varies with the circumstances: the more significant the decision and its impact on the individual, the more robust the procedural protections required. Procedural fairness breaches that can support a judicial review application include failing to give adequate notice, denying a party the opportunity to be heard, deciding the matter based on evidence the party did not have the opportunity to address, and bias or apprehended bias on the part of the decision-maker.
Jurisdictional Errors
A decision-maker who acts beyond the authority granted to them by their enabling legislation has exceeded their jurisdiction. Courts will set aside decisions made without jurisdiction regardless of whether the outcome was otherwise reasonable. Jurisdictional errors can include applying the wrong legal test, considering irrelevant factors, ignoring mandatory considerations, or making a decision that the enabling statute simply does not authorize.
Bad Faith and Improper Purpose
Decisions made in bad faith, for an improper purpose, or based on considerations that are irrelevant to the statutory scheme are subject to judicial review on those grounds. These cases require evidence of the decision-maker's actual purpose or state of mind and are more difficult to establish than unreasonableness or procedural fairness grounds, but they remain available where the facts support them.
Judicial review applications have strict deadlines. In Ontario, the application must generally be brought within 30 days of the decision. Call us as soon as you receive a decision you believe is wrong.
1-800-771-7882 Talk to a Judicial Review LawyerCivil 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 of fact and law that warrants the decision being overturned or varied. We act on civil appeals at every level in Ontario and BC, from appeals of Small Claims decisions through to proceedings before the Court of Appeal.
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 in the circumstances. Courts of appeal give significant deference to trial judges on findings of fact, which means appeals based solely on factual disagreements face a high threshold. Appeals on questions of law are reviewed on a correctness standard, meaning the appeal court will substitute its own view if it disagrees with the lower court's legal conclusion.
Appeals in Ontario
In Ontario, appeals from the Superior Court of Justice generally proceed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which is the province's highest court below the Supreme Court of Canada. Some appeals from interlocutory orders proceed to the Divisional Court. Leave to appeal is required in some circumstances and for certain categories of decisions. The Court of Appeal hears both civil and commercial appeals, and its decisions on questions of Ontario law are binding on all lower courts in the province.
Appeals in British Columbia
In BC, appeals from the BC Supreme Court proceed to the BC Court of Appeal. Leave to appeal is 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 BC Court of Appeal decisions 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 depending on the nature of the decision and the court involved. Missing the appeal deadline can permanently extinguish the right to appeal. Once the notice of appeal is filed, the appeal must be perfected by preparing the appeal record, factum, and book of authorities according to the rules of the appellate court. Appellate advocacy is a specialized skill, and the quality of the written materials filed with the court 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.
1-800-771-7882 Get Advice From a Civil Appeals LawyerWhat 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 it is important to understand the distinction.
If a judge made a legal error in a decision, the appropriate mechanism is an appeal to the court above, not a complaint about the judge's 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 Judicial Council (for provincially appointed judges). These bodies have jurisdiction to investigate complaints about judicial conduct and, in serious cases, to recommend removal from office.
Where a judge's conduct during a proceeding gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, that issue can also be raised as a ground for judicial review or appeal of the decision itself, on the basis that the proceeding was procedurally unfair. We advise on which mechanism is appropriate for the specific concern and how to pursue it effectively.
Common Contexts for Judicial Review in Ontario and BC
Judicial review arises across a wide range of administrative and regulatory contexts. The following are among the most common situations in which individuals and organizations seek judicial review.
Professional and Regulatory Disciplinary Decisions
Professionals who have been disciplined by their regulatory body, had their licence suspended or revoked, or been subject to conditions on their practice may have grounds to challenge those decisions by way of judicial review. The standard of review applied to professional discipline decisions depends on the nature of the decision and the statutory scheme governing the regulator.
Employment and Labour Decisions
Decisions of labour arbitrators, the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and BC's Labour Relations Board are subject to judicial review in limited circumstances. The highly deferential standard of review applied to labour decisions means that judicial review of arbitral awards succeeds less often than in other administrative contexts, but unreasonableness and procedural fairness grounds remain available.
Immigration and Refugee Decisions
Decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board and other federal decision-makers involved in immigration matters are subject to judicial review in the Federal Court. These applications involve their own procedural rules and timelines that differ from provincial judicial review proceedings.
Government Licensing and Permit Decisions
Where a government body has refused to issue, suspended, or revoked a licence or permit, judicial review may be available to challenge the decision. The grounds available depend on the enabling legislation and the nature of the decision, but procedural fairness and unreasonableness grounds are commonly engaged in these contexts.
Judicial Review and Appeals: Frequently Asked 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, it means that a court or other body is examining it to determine whether it should stand, be varied, or be set aside. In an administrative law context, a decision under review is one that has been challenged by way of judicial review application and is being assessed by the court. In a broader sense, the phrase can also refer to any formal reconsideration process, including an internal appeal within an organization or a statutory reconsideration by the original decision-maker.
What is the deadline for judicial review in Ontario?
Under Ontario's Judicial Review Procedure Act, an application for judicial review must generally be brought within 30 days of the decision being reviewed, unless the court grants an extension. Some specific statutes impose shorter or longer limitation periods for challenging particular types of decisions. Missing the deadline can permanently bar the application, and extensions are not granted automatically. If you have received a decision you wish to challenge, contact a judicial review lawyer promptly.
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. It is not about whether the decision 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 the decision being overturned. The two processes involve different courts, different legal standards, and different remedies. Which one is appropriate depends on the nature of the decision being challenged.
Can I appeal a tribunal decision or do I need to apply for judicial review?
It depends on the tribunal and the statute that governs it. Some enabling statutes provide a right of appeal from tribunal decisions to a court, in which case an appeal is the appropriate mechanism. Where no statutory appeal right exists, judicial review is the available avenue. In some cases, a statute provides for both an internal reconsideration process and a right of judicial review, and the order in which those remedies should be pursued matters. A judicial review lawyer can assess which mechanism applies to your situation.
What remedies are available on a successful judicial review?
Where a judicial review application succeeds, the court can quash the decision, meaning it is set aside as if it never existed. The court can also 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 legal rights of the parties and in appropriate cases award costs against the decision-maker or the party defending the decision.
How long does a judicial review application take?
Judicial review timelines vary depending on 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 whether the matter is urgent. Urgent applications can be heard on a much faster timeline where the circumstances require it. In BC, timelines in the BC 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 can advise on the appropriate mechanism and represent you through the process.
Speak With a Judicial Review Lawyer
Tell us about the decision you want to challenge. We will follow up promptly to assess your options. You can also reach us directly at 1-800-771-7882.