Judicial Review - Basics. Mcmull v. Ministry of Health
In Mcmull v. Ministry of Health (Div Ct, 2021) the Divisional Court felt it necessary to set out basics of judicial review in the face of what they viewed as particularly intransigent self-litigants:
 An application for judicial review is not a civil action. It is limited in scope and these constraints circumscribe the proper parties to the proceedings and the issues that can be raised. An application for judicial review is limited to a review of the decision made by the decision maker below, which in this case is the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board. The proper record before the Divisional Court on an application for judicial review, with narrow exceptions, is limited to the record that was before the Board. The parties to an application for judicial review are limited to the parties to the original proceeding with the addition of the decision maker – in this case the Board. The relief the Divisional Court can grant is also limited. Typically, if the Court finds that the Board’s decision was unreasonable or procedurally unfair, the Court will send the matter back to the Board to be decided afresh. In unique circumstances, the Court may substitute its decision for the Board’s decision but, in doing so, the Court is limited to the relief that the Board could have granted when it heard the matter.. Bastien v. University of Toronto
In Bastien v. University of Toronto (Div Ct, 2021) the Divisional Court made some basic comments of judicial review:
 An application for judicial review is not a trial de novo or rehearing of the underlying dispute. It is a review of the decision below, in this case the decision of the AAC, based on the record that was before the AAC. Apart from uncontroversial background evidence, affidavit evidence to supplement the record below is admissible only in exceptional circumstances.