How to Challenge a Government Decision in Court: Understanding the Judicial Review Process

When a Government Decision Seems Wrong

Government agencies and tribunals in Canada make decisions that touch virtually every area of life — immigration status, disability benefits, professional licensing, housing, employment rights, and more. These bodies are required to follow the law, act fairly, and make reasonable decisions. When they fail to do so, affected individuals have the right to ask a court to review and potentially overturn the decision.

Judicial Review vs. Appeal: What Is the Difference?

People often confuse judicial review with an appeal, but they are fundamentally different proceedings. An appeal is a right granted by statute that allows a higher court to reconsider the merits of a decision. A judicial review, on the other hand, is an inherent power of the superior courts to supervise the actions of government and administrative bodies. On judicial review, the court does not substitute its own view of the facts. Instead, it asks whether the original decision-maker acted within the bounds of the law, followed a fair process, and reached a decision that was reasonable.

In some cases, a statute may provide both an appeal right and the possibility of judicial review. Where a statutory appeal exists, you are generally required to exhaust that remedy before seeking judicial review. Understanding which route is available — and which is strategically preferable — is a critical first step.

What Makes a Decision Unreasonable?

Since the Supreme Court of Canada's 2019 decision in Vavilov, the test for unreasonableness has become clearer. A reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of reasoning and is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints. A decision may be unreasonable if the decision-maker ignored key evidence, misunderstood or misapplied the law, failed to address a central argument, relied on irrelevant considerations, or reached a conclusion that no reasonable decision-maker could reach on the evidence.

Importantly, the reasonableness standard does not require perfection. The court will not intervene simply because it disagrees with the outcome. But when a decision fundamentally lacks logic, transparency, or justification, the court can and will set it aside.

Procedural Fairness: The Right to Be Heard

Even if the substance of a decision is defensible, it can be overturned if the process that led to it was unfair. Procedural fairness — also called natural justice — requires that the person affected by a decision be given adequate notice, a meaningful opportunity to present their case, and a decision-maker who is impartial. What constitutes adequate procedural fairness varies depending on the nature of the decision and its impact on the individual.

Common procedural fairness failures include holding a hearing without giving the affected party adequate notice, refusing to allow a party to present evidence or make submissions, relying on evidence that was not disclosed to the affected party, exhibiting bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias, and failing to provide adequate reasons for the decision. Unlike reasonableness, procedural fairness is reviewed on a correctness standard — meaning the court will determine for itself whether the process was fair, without deference to the decision-maker.

Remedies Available on Judicial Review

If the court finds that the decision was unreasonable or procedurally unfair, it has several remedies available. The most common is to quash the decision and send the matter back to the original decision-maker for reconsideration. The court may direct that the matter be reconsidered by a different decision-maker to avoid any appearance of prejudgment. In some cases, the court may substitute its own decision, though this is less common. The court can also issue orders of mandamus (requiring the decision-maker to take a specific action), prohibition (preventing the decision-maker from proceeding), or certiorari (quashing the decision).

Time Limits and Urgency

One of the most critical aspects of judicial review is the tight timelines. In Ontario's Divisional Court, the general rule is that an application must be filed within 30 days of the decision. In the Federal Court, the typical deadline is also 30 days, though some statutes specify different periods. Missing the deadline does not always mean you are out of options — extensions of time can sometimes be granted — but delay weakens your position and makes the application more difficult. If you believe a tribunal or government body has made an error, seeking legal advice immediately is essential.

The Bottom Line

Judicial review exists to ensure that government bodies and tribunals respect the rule of law. No decision-maker is above scrutiny, and no one should accept an unreasonable or unfair decision simply because it came from an official body. The process is technical and time-sensitive, but it is a fundamental safeguard in a democratic society. Understanding your rights is the first step toward protecting them.