Introduction

Judicial review is a foundational principle of Canadian constitutional law. It serves as a critical mechanism through which courts ensure that the actions of government actors—whether legislative, executive, or administrative—comply with the Constitution and the rule of law. In Canada, judicial review reflects the country’s commitment to democracy, fairness, and accountability in governance.

What is judicial review?

Canada Judicial Review refers to the process by which courts assess the legality and constitutionality of decisions made by administrative bodies or government officials. It guarantees that these decisions stay within the boundaries of legal authority and follow the principles of procedural fairness.

There are two primary forms of judicial review in the Canadian legal system:

  1. Constitutional Judicial Review – The courts determine whether legislation or executive actions violate the Constitution, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  2. Administrative Law Judicial Review – The courts assess whether administrative decisions are reasonable, procedurally fair, and within the decision-maker’s legal authority.

Legal Framework and Key Principles

The legal authority for judicial review in Canada arises from several sources, including:

  • The Constitution Act, 1867, and The Constitution Act, 1982, especially the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • Administrative bodies receive powers from federal and provincial statutes.
  • Common law principles guide courts in assessing fairness and reasonableness.

In the landmark case of Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick (2008), the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the standard review framework, establishing two main standards:

  • Correctness: No deference is given to the decision-maker; the court substitutes its own judgement.
  • Reasonableness: The court gives deference but ensures the decision falls within a range of acceptable outcomes.

Role of the Courts

The Canadian judiciary, especially superior courts and appellate courts, plays a central role in reviewing decisions made by administrative tribunals, ministers, and even Parliament. The Supreme Court of Canada has the ultimate authority to interpret constitutional questions and provide clarity on complex legal issues.

Judicial review empowers the courts to:

  • Invalidate unconstitutional legislation.
  • Quash unreasonable or unfair administrative decisions.
  • Protect individuals’ rights under the Charter.
  • Ensure that governmental bodies act within their legal mandates.

Limits of Judicial Review

Despite its importance, judicial review has limitations. It does not grant courts the power to make policy or substitute their decisions for those of elected officials or expert tribunals. Courts must respect the democratic and institutional roles of other branches of government, intervening only when the law is breached or justice is undermined.

Conclusion

Judicial review in Canada upholds the rule of law and ensures that government actions remain accountable to legal and constitutional standards. It reinforces the balance of powers among the judiciary, legislature, and executive, protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals while maintaining a functional and democratic state. As Canada continues to evolve, judicial review remains a vital tool for safeguarding constitutional governance.