What Is a Judicial Review in Ontario? A Guide to Challenging Government and Tribunal Decisions

When the Government or a Tribunal Gets It Wrong

Government agencies and administrative tribunals make decisions every day that profoundly affect people's lives. A tribunal denies your disability benefits. An immigration officer refuses your application. A licensing body revokes your professional credentials. A municipal committee rejects your land use proposal. When these decision-makers get it wrong, judicial review is the legal mechanism that allows you to ask a court to step in and correct the error.

What Is Judicial Review?

Judicial review is a court proceeding in which a judge examines a decision made by a government body, administrative tribunal, or other public decision-maker to determine whether it was lawful. Unlike an appeal, which typically looks at whether the decision was correct on the merits, judicial review focuses on the process and the reasonableness of the decision. The court asks whether the decision-maker acted within its authority, followed fair procedures, and reached a decision that falls within the range of reasonable outcomes.

In Ontario, most judicial review applications are brought in the Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. For decisions made by federal bodies, the application is brought in the Federal Court of Canada.

Grounds for Judicial Review

A court will intervene on judicial review where the decision-maker committed one or more recognized errors. The most common grounds include unreasonableness, where the decision lacks transparency, justification, or intelligibility and does not fall within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes. Procedural unfairness is another key ground, such as when the decision-maker failed to give adequate notice, denied the right to be heard, was biased, or failed to provide adequate reasons. A decision-maker may also be challenged for acting beyond its jurisdiction — exceeding the authority granted to it by statute. Finally, a decision may be reviewable if it was based on an error of law, such as misinterpreting the governing legislation.

The Standard of Review

The standard of review determines how closely the court will scrutinize the decision. Following the Supreme Court of Canada's landmark decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, the presumptive standard is reasonableness. This means the court will uphold the decision as long as it is transparent, intelligible, and justified — even if the court might have reached a different conclusion. The more demanding standard of correctness applies in limited circumstances, such as constitutional questions, questions of jurisdiction between tribunals, and certain other categories defined by the Supreme Court.

The Judicial Review Process in Ontario

The process begins with filing a Notice of Application in the Divisional Court. Strict time limits apply — in many cases, you must file within 30 days of the decision being communicated to you, though some statutes provide different timelines. The application must be supported by an affidavit setting out the facts and a factum (written argument) explaining the legal basis for the challenge. The decision-maker's record — the documents and evidence that were before the tribunal — must also be obtained and filed with the court.

The hearing is typically conducted on the basis of the written record rather than live testimony. Oral argument is presented before a panel of judges, and the court may quash the decision, send it back for reconsideration, or in some cases substitute its own decision.

Common Types of Decisions Subject to Judicial Review

Almost any decision by a public body can potentially be challenged by judicial review. Common examples include decisions by the Social Security Tribunal denying CPP disability pensions or Employment Insurance benefits, decisions by the Landlord and Tenant Board, municipal zoning and planning decisions, professional regulatory body decisions such as those by the College of Physicians or the Law Society, immigration and refugee decisions by federal tribunals, decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, and decisions by children's aid societies and child welfare bodies.

Key Considerations Before Applying

Before seeking judicial review, there are several important factors to consider. Time limits are often very short, and missing the deadline can be fatal to your application. You generally must exhaust all other available remedies first — if the statute provides an internal appeal mechanism, you are usually required to use it before turning to the courts. Standing is another consideration: you must have a direct interest in the decision being challenged. Finally, judicial review is not an opportunity to re-argue the merits of your case or introduce new evidence. The court reviews the decision based on the record that was before the original decision-maker.

The Bottom Line

Judicial review is a powerful tool for holding government decision-makers accountable. It ensures that tribunals and agencies follow the law, respect procedural fairness, and make reasonable decisions. But the process is technical, the deadlines are tight, and the legal arguments require careful framing. If you believe a government body or tribunal has made an unreasonable or unfair decision that affects your rights, acting quickly is essential.