In Gerstel v. FSRA (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a JR, this brought against the "Financial Service Tribunal’s March 31, 2025 decision, which ordered the respondent, Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) to carry out the terms of a notice of proposal" which "proposed to refuse to renew the applicants’ licenses and to impose administrative penalties".
Here the court considers the JR SOR for fact issues:
[17] Absent exceptional circumstances, a reviewing court will not interfere with the factual findings of an administrative decision-maker: Vavilov, at para. 125. None of the examples provided by the applicants amount to exceptional circumstances warranting this court’s intervention. ....
. Canada (Attorney General) v. Ibrahim
In Canada (Attorney General) v. Ibrahim (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal considered a Crown JR of a decision by the Social Security Tribunal (Appeal Division) that upheld the respondent's eligibility for a CPP-disability pension.
In this quote the court considers the SOR for challenging fact findings in a JR:
[16] Factual findings made by the decision-maker are owed deference and will not be interfered with, absent exceptional circumstances (Vavilov at paras. 125-126; Mason at para. 73).
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
