Judicial review is the process by which courts supervise the exercise of public power by administrative decision makers. In Canadian law, it serves as a constitutional safeguard that ensures government actors act within the limits of their lawful authority, follow fair procedures, and respect fundamental legal principles. It is not an appeal on the merits but a review of the legality, reasonableness, and procedural integrity of a decision. Judicial review reflects the rule of law by affirming that no public authority is above the law.

Constitutional and Legal Foundations

Judicial review is rooted in the Constitution of Canada. Sections 96 to 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867 preserve the supervisory jurisdiction of superior courts, while section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 affirms constitutional supremacy. Together, these provisions ensure that courts retain the authority to invalidate unlawful exercises of public power. Statutorily, judicial review is governed by federal and provincial legislation that regulates procedure, jurisdiction, and timelines, while leaving the core supervisory function intact.

Scope of Judicial Review

Judicial review applies to decisions made by administrative bodies exercising statutory or delegated authority, including:

• Tribunals and regulatory agencies
• Ministers and government departments
• Professional disciplinary bodies
• Municipal and local authorities

It does not apply to purely private decisions or to legislative acts, except in limited constitutional contexts.

Grounds of Judicial Review

Canadian law recognises three core grounds upon which a decision may be reviewed:

• Jurisdiction and Authority

A decision maker must act within the powers granted by statute. Acting outside those powers, misinterpreting the scope of authority, or failing to exercise mandatory jurisdiction renders a decision unlawful.

• Procedural Fairness

Decision makers must follow fair procedures appropriate to the context. This may include notice, disclosure, the opportunity to be heard, impartiality, and reasons. The content of procedural fairness varies depending on the nature of the decision and its impact.

• Substantive Review of the Decision

Courts assess whether the outcome is legally justifiable. This is typically conducted through the standard of review framework, most commonly reasonableness, which asks whether the decision is intelligible, transparent, and justified in light of the law and facts.

Standards of Review

Modern Canadian judicial review applies two principal standards:

• Reasonableness, which accords deference to the decision maker while requiring a rational and coherent justification grounded in the statutory framework
• Correctness, which applies in limited circumstances, such as constitutional questions or issues of central importance to the legal system as a whole

The choice of standard reflects a balance between judicial oversight and respect for administrative expertise.

Remedies in Judicial Review

Where a court finds an error, it may grant several remedies, including:

• Quashing or setting aside the decision
• Ordering the decision maker to reconsider the matter
• Declaring the rights or obligations of the parties
• Granting injunctive or interim relief in appropriate cases

Courts generally avoid substituting their own decision for that of the administrative body, preserving the separation of functions. 

Rights and Obligations of the Parties

Applicants must demonstrate standing, comply with procedural requirements, and bring the application within prescribed time limits. They bear the burden of showing that the decision is unlawful or unreasonable. Decision makers are obliged to justify their decisions, respect procedural fairness, and act consistently with their statutory mandate and constitutional obligations.

Judicial Review and Administrative Independence

Judicial review respects the independence and expertise of administrative bodies. Courts do not reweigh evidence or reassess factual findings unless the decision lacks rational support or fails to address essential issues. This restraint reinforces the legitimacy of administrative governance while maintaining legal accountability.

Practical Consequences

Judicial review provides a critical avenue of accountability for individuals and organisations affected by government decisions. It promotes consistency, fairness, and legality in public administration, while also offering predictability for regulators and regulated parties. For governments, it reinforces the need for careful decision making, clear reasons, and adherence to statutory purposes. 

Conclusion

Judicial review remains a cornerstone of Canadian public law. It mediates the relationship between courts and the administrative state, ensuring that public power is exercised lawfully, fairly, and in accordance with the rule of law.