In Ontario, an application for judicial review is a legal process allowing courts to examine the decisions, actions, or omissions of administrative bodies, governmental agencies, and tribunals, ensuring they operate within lawful bounds. This mechanism upholds fundamental principles such as fairness, reasonableness, and adherence to statutory mandates. When individuals, corporations, or interest groups believe that a public authority has exceeded its jurisdiction, ignored mandatory procedures, or breached rights guaranteed by legislation or constitutional norms, judicial review provides a pathway to challenge those actions. Through judicial oversight, courts foster accountability across Ontario’s administrative landscape, safeguarding citizens against potential overreach or unjust procedural outcomes.
This comprehensive examination offers an in-depth perspective on the nature of judicial review, outlining the relevant legal framework, the grounds on which parties can seek review, the procedural steps involved, and the remedies courts may grant upon finding errors. In Ontario, the Judicial Review Procedure Act governs much of the process, while case law refines how standards of review, standing requirements, and evidence rules function in practice. Although administrative decisions range widely—from professional regulatory bodies assessing member misconduct to municipal boards making zoning determinations—the fundamental objective is consistent: to preserve integrity and legality in governmental or quasi-governmental decision-making.
Undertaking a judicial review application can be both intricate and time-sensitive. Applicants must identify a valid ground of review, compile a persuasive evidentiary record, and file proceedings with the Divisional Court or another designated bench within stipulated deadlines. While judicial review courts do not re-litigate factual findings or supplant administrative expertise, they can quash decisions, remit matters back for redetermination, or grant declaratory relief. Consequently, strategic planning, skilled advocacy, and thorough knowledge of the relevant statutes or guidelines are crucial to mounting a successful challenge. Engaging experienced counsel ensures that the applicant’s submissions address the appropriate standard of review—be it correctness, reasonableness, or fairness—and that all procedural prerequisites have been meticulously observed.
Foundations in Administrative Law
Judicial review in Ontario is anchored in administrative law principles that guide how courts supervise governmental and quasi-governmental authorities. Administrative bodies exercise powers conferred by statute, often for specialized policy areas such as environmental licensing, workplace safety, or professional regulation. Because legislators assign these bodies the task of making decisions that require subject-matter expertise and efficient procedures, courts typically adopt a restrained approach when reviewing their rulings. This balancing act respects the autonomy of such tribunals or agencies while ensuring they do not act outside their jurisdiction or infringe upon fundamental rights.
Over decades, Canadian jurisprudence has developed a robust framework to categorize the standard of review into correctness (applied for certain jurisdictional or constitutional questions) and reasonableness (applied for most policy-laden or fact-specific decisions). Courts weigh the nature of the question—legal, factual, or mixed—and the administrative body’s particular expertise to determine the standard. Additionally, courts remain vigilant about upholding fairness obligations, ensuring that decision-makers respect essential procedural rights such as notice, the right to be heard, and freedom from bias.
Judicial Review Procedure Act
The Judicial Review Procedure Act provides Ontario litigants with the statutory route to initiate judicial review. It defines the Divisional Court’s jurisdiction and the procedural aspects for bringing applications against “statutory powers of decision.” Claimants must typically file an application for judicial review within a reasonable time after the impugned decision or action. The Divisional Court can extend or shorten deadlines if fairness dictates. The application includes a notice specifying the grounds of review, supported by an affidavit or record of the decision-making body’s documents. The responding authority, usually the government body, tribunal, or official in question, then files its own materials, seeking to justify the legality of the decision.
The process culminates in a hearing where counsel present arguments about statutory interpretation, the reasonableness or correctness of the decision, and whether the procedure used adhered to natural justice. The court can dismiss the application if the decision or action stands on solid statutory or evidentiary footing. Conversely, if the judge finds a breach in jurisdiction, fairness, or rationality, they may quash or set aside the decision, potentially remitting it to the authority for a fresh ruling. The court’s powers in awarding costs—particularly in public interest or charter-related reviews—further reflect judicial oversight’s balancing act between safeguarding legitimate governance and correcting injustices.
Intersection With Constitutional Law and Charter Rights
Although many judicial review applications focus on statutory compliance or fairness in administrative decisions, constitutional and charter dimensions can arise. For instance, if a municipal bylaw or professional regulatory rule is alleged to contravene fundamental rights like freedom of expression or equality, applicants might seek review on the basis that the public body’s enforcement or interpretation of that rule violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The reviewing court would then weigh constitutional arguments, often applying a correctness standard if the question pertains to whether a measure is consistent with the charter.
In these charter-based contexts, the outcome can reshape how the administrative body interprets or enforces its enabling statute. While administrative decision-makers generally hold authority to consider charter values within their processes, ultimate constitutional compliance remains a judicial domain. This interplay illustrates how judicial review does not merely rectify procedural or jurisdictional missteps but can also refine the boundaries of governance, ensuring public authorities respect constitutionally enshrined values in daily decision-making.
Jurisdictional Error and Ultra Vires Actions
One foundational ground of review is that the decision-maker exceeded its lawful authority—known as acting ultra vires. For instance, if a municipal board grants a permit outside the scope of its enabling statute or a regulatory body imposes sanctions for matters not falling under its regulatory domain, that action can be quashed on jurisdictional grounds. Courts apply a correctness standard to pure jurisdictional questions, meaning they do not defer to the administrative body’s interpretation if it extends beyond a clear statutory boundary. Even if the decision seemed reasonable from a policy standpoint, the body’s lack of jurisdiction invalidates it. In Ontario, the breadth or narrowness of an agency’s delegated powers can prove decisive: some agencies have broad policy mandates, while others are restricted to enumerated powers.
Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice
Another crucial ground is breach of procedural fairness, reflecting the principle that decision-makers must follow rules of natural justice. Applicants may allege inadequate notice, insufficient disclosure of evidence, or a denial of a meaningful hearing. If a tribunal’s internal processes fail to let the affected party present their case or challenge adverse evidence, the final decision might be set aside for unfairness. Bias—whether real or apprehended—is also a recognized ground: if a tribunal member had a personal interest, exhibited hostility, or pre-decided the outcome, a court will intervene. The standard of review in fairness contexts is generally one of correctness, as courts consider whether the procedure satisfied baseline legal requirements for impartial hearing.
Errors of Law and Reasonableness
Outside pure jurisdiction or fairness, many judicial reviews revolve around whether the administrative body’s interpretation of law or application of policy was reasonable. If the question is within the specialized domain of the tribunal, such as a labour relations board interpreting its enabling legislation, courts usually accord deference and ask whether the decision falls within a range of acceptable outcomes. Applicants must show that the authority’s findings had little rational basis or that they contradicted clear legislative direction. If the reasoning chain is coherent, supported by the record, and respects the legislative intent, the decision typically stands as reasonable. Only if the decision is evidently flawed or results in an outcome that defies common sense or statutory language will the court intervene.
Fettering Discretion and Bad Faith
Administrative bodies often possess discretion in making regulatory or policy choices, but they must exercise that discretion lawfully. If an agency imposes rigid, inflexible policies that effectively ignore individual merits, or if it automatically rubber-stamps decisions without genuine consideration, it can be said to have fettered its discretion. Courts also examine whether a decision-maker acted in bad faith—motivated by personal animus, extraneous influence, or an improper purpose. For instance, if a government official denies a permit purely to punish a political opponent rather than to uphold statutory criteria, that official’s decision is vulnerable to quashing for bad faith. These grounds preserve the integrity of administrative discretion by disallowing mechanical or partisan action that strays from statutory aims.
Reasonableness Versus Correctness
In modern Canadian administrative law, courts typically apply a standard of reasonableness for many types of judicial review, deferring to the administrative decision-maker’s specialized knowledge if the matter involves policy or factual determinations within that body’s expertise. The question is whether the decision, including its rationale and outcome, is justifiable and intelligible given the law and evidence. Alternatively, correctness arises in scenarios like determining the scope of an agency’s jurisdiction or constitutional questions that demand uniform legal interpretation. In those areas, the court does not defer but decides whether the outcome is correct by the applicable legal principles.
This nuanced approach acknowledges that agencies have a legitimate policy-making role but also that certain fundamental or jurisdictional matters remain the court’s purview. By calibrating the standard of review, Ontario courts preserve a balanced system that respects legislative intent, fosters specialized expertise, and upholds legal uniformity in crucial topics. Applicants who fail to address the appropriate standard risk losing their application: an argument that the body’s interpretation was not absolutely correct may fail if reasonableness is the relevant yardstick and the body’s approach remains plausible.
Impact on Advocacy and Submissions
Practically, an applicant’s submissions must tailor arguments to the standard of review. If the matter is correctness—for instance, a question of statutory authority or a breach of fundamental fairness—the applicant persuades the court that the body’s decision was legally incorrect or evidently procedurally flawed. Meanwhile, under reasonableness, the applicant typically shows the decision-maker’s rationale lacks a valid evidentiary chain or contravenes some legislative or judicial guidelines. Lawyers must also highlight the body’s enabling statute, any prior jurisprudence guiding the tribunal’s powers, and how the final outcome might distort the legislative purpose.
Respondents, often the administrative authority or the attorney general’s representatives, defend the legitimacy of the decision by pointing to the body’s expertise, thorough fact-finding, and compliance with relevant frameworks. They emphasize that minor interpretive variances or differences in policy approach should not topple the ruling so long as the outcome is within the scope of reasonableness. Ontario judges weigh these points in light of established Supreme Court of Canada precedents on standard of review, ensuring that the lines between deference and correction remain consistent and transparent to litigants.
Commencing the Application
Applicants typically start by preparing an application for judicial review, filed with the Divisional Court if it concerns most provincial administrative decisions. The notice of application outlines the nature of the challenge, the grounds invoked (jurisdiction, fairness, reasonableness, etc.), and the relief sought, such as quashing the decision or remitting it for a new hearing. Applicants attach an affidavit or record that includes the administrative body’s decision, relevant transcripts, or any material evidencing the alleged error. The respondent authority or tribunal then files its responding materials. Intervenors with a stake in the outcome can seek leave to submit factums or oral submissions, especially in public interest or policy-rich cases.
Timely filing is critical. While no absolute statutory limitation always applies, “unreasonable delay” can defeat the application, as courts discourage applicants from sitting on alleged injustices. If an individual fails to act promptly, the court may refuse relief, reasoning that it is unfair to the decision-maker or that the subject matter has become stale. Meanwhile, some specialized statutes impose explicit time frames, meaning an applicant must verify the relevant deadlines. If irreparable harm is threatened—like immediate deportation or license revocation— the applicant might request an interim stay to prevent enforcement pending the review’s outcome.
Hearing and Remedies
After exchanging records, affidavits, and factums, the parties appear in the Divisional Court to argue their respective positions. The applicant’s counsel emphasizes how the standard of review and alleged grounds intersect, pointing out statutory misinterpretations, procedural flaws, or unreasonableness in the final outcome. The respondent defends the decision as logically consistent, thoroughly reasoned, and within statutory authority. Judges might question counsel on potential oversights or how the decision’s rationale aligns with prior jurisprudence. Following oral arguments and review of written materials, the court issues a ruling.
If the court upholds the decision, the application is dismissed, and costs may be awarded against the applicant. If the court finds merit in the challenge, it can quash or set aside the administrative action, typically remitting the matter to the original body for a fresh determination under corrected guidelines. Alternatively, the court might declare the relevant decision invalid but refrain from specific mandates if the public authority must address complexities best left to its specialized domain. In rare circumstances—like repeated unfairness or serious charter breaches—the court may provide additional remedies, from suspending the challenged policy to awarding constitutional relief. Costs judgments often reflect the complexity and significance of the case, with partial indemnity typically guiding how legal fees are allocated.
Quashing or Setting Aside the Decision
A common outcome of successful judicial review is the quashing of the administrative decision if the court concludes it was rendered without jurisdiction, contravened fairness principles, or was irrational under the reasonableness standard. Nullifying the decision resets the parties to the status quo before it was made. In scenarios where time sensitivity looms, such as losing a professional license or facing a deportation order, quashing can have immediate, life-altering impact, restoring or preserving the applicant’s rights. If the matter concerns a regulatory penalty, the quash stops enforcement. The administrative body often must re-hear the application or rectify the identified errors to produce a lawful outcome.
Remittal for Redetermination
Rather than substituting its own findings, the court typically sends the matter back to the original decision-maker with instructions to correct the identified flaws. This approach respects the principle that specialized bodies hold subject-matter expertise. For example, if a tribunal incorrectly excluded relevant evidence or misapplied a statutory test, the Divisional Court might direct it to reconsider the case with the correct evidence or interpretive approach. This remedy encourages the specialized body to refine its decision while following lawful processes, ideally leading to a new outcome that meets the legal standards. Where repeated procedural lapses occur, the court might impose more explicit guidance or deadlines, ensuring the authority diligently addresses the issues.
Declaratory Relief and Stays
Sometimes courts issue declaratory relief, stating that the administrative action or policy was unlawful, but not necessarily ordering a new hearing or quashing every linked outcome. This can happen if the applicant’s interest is mostly to confirm the decision’s invalid nature or to guide future conduct. In urgent cases, applicants may seek an interim stay at the beginning of proceedings, preventing enforcement until the court rules on the main application. For instance, a professional ordered suspended by a regulator might secure a stay of that suspension pending the final judicial review. The success of such a request hinges on demonstrating a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm absent the stay, and that the balance of convenience favours preserving the status quo. Ultimately, these remedial tools let the court calibrate its intervention, not only reversing flawed outcomes but shaping how agencies proceed going forward.
When navigating judicial review in Ontario, whether defending your position or contesting an administrative decision, Grigoras Law offers decisive counsel. Choose us for:
Disclaimer: The answers provided in this FAQ section are general in nature and should not be relied upon as formal legal advice. Each individual case is unique, and a separate analysis is required to address specific context and fact situations. For comprehensive guidance tailored to your situation, we welcome you to contact our expert team.
Judicial review and appeals serve distinct purposes and apply to different aspects of administrative or judicial decisions. An appeal typically involves a higher tribunal or court re-examining an initial ruling on factual, legal, or mixed questions. It may allow new evidence or revolve around whether the initial decision was correct in its findings. By contrast, judicial review is a specialized process aimed at examining whether the administrative body acted within the scope of its enabling statute and followed lawful procedures—focusing on the decision’s reasonableness or correctness under legal standards. Courts in a judicial review do not usually reweigh evidence or replace the administrative body’s factual determinations, unless there is a reasonableness or fairness failure so severe that the decision cannot stand.
In Ontario, not all administrative decisions come with a built-in appeal path. Many statutes outline some form of internal appeal or recourse to a specialized appellate tribunal. If none is provided—or if an appeal was attempted and exhausted—an aggrieved party may turn to judicial review for recourse. The Divisional Court stands as the main venue for these applications. Even if a statutory appeal is available, parties occasionally bypass it (if legally permissible) in favour of judicial review, but typically courts prefer that statutory appeal routes be followed first. Judges check whether the decision was made with legal authority, procedural fairness, and an acceptable rationale. If the matter is purely about an alleged factual error outside statutory bounds, an appeal might be more appropriate than judicial review. Understanding these nuances prevents time lost on the wrong remedy. By clarifying that judicial review primarily targets the decision-maker’s process and scope rather than a straightforward reappraisal of facts, parties can approach each administrative challenge with the correct legal tactic.
Time limits in judicial review reflect the courts’ insistence on prompt resolution of disputes about administrative decisions. Because many public bodies rely on finality and stable regulatory actions, letting applicants wait months or years before challenging a decision undermines efficient governance. Courts can refuse relief if they consider the applicant’s delay unreasonable, concluding that the administrative body or third parties might have changed positions or relied on the decision in ways that cannot be easily undone. While Ontario’s Judicial Review Procedure Act does not always set a precise statutory limit for each type of decision, courts rely on the principle that undue delay erodes fairness and public certainty.
Applicants who suspect an administrative body’s ruling is flawed should act swiftly. They gather the necessary record, consult legal counsel, and file the notice of application. In some areas, a six-month or similar time frame is informally recognized as the outer limit of reasonableness, although each case depends on context. If a party invests resources or modifies operations in reliance on the decision, unwinding that scenario after a long delay can be detrimental. The Divisional Court might also consider whether the applicant requested an internal review or explored other remedies before turning to judicial review, assessing whether that path contributed to the delay.
Where urgent harm looms—such as revocation of a critical license—the applicant may need even faster action, potentially seeking an interim stay along with the application. A well-prepared submission that explains any short delay or clarifies why immediate review is vital can improve the court’s receptiveness. By contrast, an applicant who offers no justification for tardiness may face summary dismissal, as courts aim to uphold the principle of timely recourse for alleged administrative injustice. Therefore, promptness is a strategic necessity as much as a courtesy to the legal system.
The Divisional Court, as Ontario’s primary forum for judicial review, exercises discretion in deciding whether to grant or refuse relief, even if it identifies an arguable error. Some reasons for refusal include:
Alternative remedies: If the applicant can pursue a statutory right of appeal or an internal tribunal review, the court may direct them to exhaust those channels first. Judicial review is typically a last resort when no adequate statutory remedy exists or if the statutory route has been tried or is obviously futile.
Mootness or minimal impact: If the contested administrative decision has expired or been overtaken by events, the court might consider the matter moot, particularly if no live controversy remains. However, if a public interest stands at stake, the court could still hear the case.
Lack of standing: Applicants must show a genuine interest or direct impact from the decision. Purely theoretical or meddlesome applications can be dismissed on standing grounds, unless a public interest standing argument is compelling.
Discretionary factors: Courts may weigh whether the alleged error truly undermines the integrity of the administrative process. If the flaw appears harmless or the outcome would almost certainly be the same upon re-evaluation, the court might not intervene. Similarly, if the applicant contributed to any procedural missteps or withheld relevant data from the tribunal, the court can consider that in its decision to withhold a discretionary remedy.
Excessive delay: As discussed, if the application arrives long after the decision, with no credible excuse, the court may decline to hear it. The Divisional Court’s approach ensures fairness among all stakeholders—public authorities, third parties relying on stable decisions, and the applicants themselves—by discouraging tardy or inconsequential interventions.
Overall, while the Divisional Court wants to ensure administrative bodies act lawfully, it also preserves judicial economy, focuses on meaningful controversies, and respects specialized statutory regimes. Demonstrating that no alternative route exists, that the issue is live and significant, and that the applicant has a clear stake in the matter all shape the court’s willingness to proceed with a judicial review application.
Procedural fairness concerns revolve around the method by which a decision was reached rather than the correctness of the final outcome. For instance, if an individual faced a licensing hearing but was never given notice of relevant evidence, or if a regulator refused to let them present a defence, the process can be judged unfair. Courts view procedural fairness as vital to upholding the “right to be heard,” freedom from bias, and reasoned decision-making. They apply a correctness standard to such claims, meaning they do not defer to the administrative body’s approach. If the body’s procedure demonstrably fell below the fairness threshold, the court may quash the result, even if that result was substantively plausible.
By contrast, substantive challenges typically allege that the body misunderstood the law, misapplied policy, or arrived at an outcome outside the range of reasonable results. Here, courts often show deference, applying a reasonableness standard if the matter is within the specialized domain of the administrative body. The question becomes whether the final decision is justified in light of the legislative context and the evidence. A minor or arguable difference in interpretation usually does not lead the court to intervene if the reasoning is coherent and consistent with the law’s purpose.
In essence, the court splits the analysis: first, ensuring the procedure was fair and no inherent bias or serious defect overshadowed the hearing. Second, if the procedure meets these standards, the court checks whether the decision, from a substantive vantage, is within a permissible margin of appreciation or if it hits a correctness test if certain legal questions are purely outside the body’s domain. Applicants must tailor submissions accordingly: procedural challenges require highlighting denial of basic hearing rights, while substantive challenges demand illustrating how the decision contravenes statutory constraints or rational logic.
Standard of review sets the lens through which courts evaluate an administrative decision—correctness for certain legal or constitutional issues, reasonableness for policy or factual ones. This distinction can determine whether the court upholds a borderline or debatable ruling or steps in to correct it. If correctness applies, the court will scrutinize the administrative body’s interpretation meticulously, displacing it if the court believes it is legally wrong. Conversely, under reasonableness, the court checks if the decision is “acceptable” or “defensible,” not whether it is the best or only possible outcome.
By establishing the proper standard, applicants frame how they must present alleged errors. For correctness, they emphasize statutory or constitutional analysis, showing the decision-maker parted from legislatively mandated interpretations. For reasonableness, they typically show that the body’s result defies rational explanation, leaps in logic, or strains the evidence. Meanwhile, respondents highlight the specialized expertise or policy-laden context that justifies deference, insisting the decision fits a range of valid conclusions. If the matter crosses into jurisdictional or fundamental rights territory, the applicant might push for correctness to reduce the body’s margin for error.
Canadian administrative jurisprudence has also recognized that some issues may attract reasonableness but with a more searching approach if the question pertains partly to the body’s home statute but also touches on broader legal norms. Thus, the standard of review remains dynamic, and advocates spend considerable energy arguing which standard should apply. A misstep in identifying or supporting the correct standard can derail an otherwise robust challenge. If the court decides the question was within the body’s specialized domain, the applicant’s entire submission might falter if it was pitched around correctness. Conversely, if the court sees the question as purely legal, the body’s approach might not receive deference. Mastery of these legal nuances fosters effective advocacy and clarifies for the judge exactly how to weigh the contested aspects of the administrative decision.
Yes, Ontario courts can grant interim relief pending judicial review, often in the form of a stay or an injunction that suspends the administrative decision’s enforcement until the court renders a final ruling. For example, if a professional regulator suspends a member’s license, the member may face irreparable harm, losing livelihood if forced to stop practicing while the judicial review meanders. By requesting a stay, the member shows a serious issue to be tried, possible irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience favoring suspension of the decision. If the court is convinced these criteria are met, it may pause enforcement so that the applicant is not effectively punished by a potentially unlawful ruling in the interim.
Similarly, if an immigration or municipal decision would remove the applicant from the jurisdiction or demolish a building, the applicant can argue that waiting for final judicial review could moot their remedy if irreversible harm occurs first. This approach encourages courts to weigh the immediate consequences. The administrative authority might oppose the stay, insisting on the public interest or statutory objectives. The court weighs each side’s evidence, often convening a shorter hearing or using written submissions for urgent matters. If the applicant obtains the stay but ultimately loses the judicial review, the initial decision typically takes effect, subject to any other modifications the court might direct. Alternatively, if no stay was sought or granted, the applicant might endure the consequences of enforcement, which can be challenging to reverse even if they later win on the merits. Skilled counsel thoroughly documents the reasons a stay is necessary, including potential harm, the relative public interest, and how quickly the main hearing might occur, ensuring a balanced approach that respects both the applicant’s rights and the administrative body’s legitimate role.
When the Divisional Court or a reviewing judge grants judicial review, the main remedy is setting aside or quashing the administrative decision and remitting it for redetermination. This outcome resets the relationship to the status quo ante, with the body required to re-evaluate the matter under corrected legal parameters or fairer procedures. Depending on the severity of errors found, the court might provide explicit instructions on how to correct them, shaping the manner in which the authority addresses the case anew. In some instances, the court might declare aspects of the body’s policy or approach unlawful, prompting the authority to revise internal guidelines for all future decisions. This can lead to a broader shift in how that agency functions or interprets its statute, affecting not just the applicant but others subject to the same regulatory framework.
On the applicant’s side, success can restore rights or entitlements—for instance, reinstatement of a license or halting enforcement of a contested bylaw. If the matter is returned for re-hearing, the applicant might still face the same or a modified outcome if they cannot persuade the body under the newly set rules. The court’s decision often fosters a more cautious or thorough approach by the administrative authority in subsequent rulings, as staff or board members become more mindful of fairness, reasonableness, and statutory boundaries. Meanwhile, if the applicant’s challenge fails, the authority’s approach is vindicated. That can solidify the authority’s standing in parallel disputes or indicate that its processes meet judicially acceptable thresholds.
Costs orders also color the aftermath. Applicants who partially succeed might be awarded partial indemnity for legal expenses, but if the court believes the challenge was mostly unsuccessful or overly litigious, it could award costs to the respondent. In some public interest challenges, each side might bear its own costs. Regardless, the final outcome redefines the applicant’s engagement with that authority. If the relationship remains ongoing—like a professional who will continue to be regulated by the same body—they might approach future dealings with more caution or open dialogue about improved procedures. The authority, similarly, may refine staff training or hearing processes to align with the court’s suggestions. Ultimately, judicial review can be a catalyst, not just for remedying a particular injustice, but for elevating the entire standard of administrative governance in Ontario.
Grigoras Law provides smart, strategic counsel in civil litigation, business law, and appeals across Ontario.
Smart, Strategic Counsel.
GRIGORAS LAW - Civil Litigation and Business Lawyers Toronto © 2025 All Right Reserved
our team of experienced lawyers are at your service
