Manitoba is one of the few Canadian provinces without legislation governing the procedure for judicial review. In July 2026, the Manitoba Law Reform Commission released Final Report #147, Administrative Law in Manitoba: A Proposed Statute for Judicial Review, which recommends that Manitoba enact such a statute and includes draft legislation.
Judicial review is the process by which the courts supervise the decisions of government decision-makers, including cabinet ministers, regulators, licensing bodies, municipalities and administrative tribunals.
In Manitoba, the procedure is governed largely by the common law and a single provision of the Court of King’s Bench Rules. The Commission found that this leaves several basic questions without clear answers, including the time within which an application must be brought, the evidence the court may consider, and the parties who must be named.
The draft statute draws on the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7, and on legislation in Ontario and British Columbia. Much of it would codify existing law. Several provisions, however, would materially change how judicial review applications proceed in Manitoba.
A 30-Day Limitation Period
The most significant proposed change for parties affected by government decisions is a fixed deadline. Under the draft statute, an application for judicial review would have to be brought within 30 days after the decision is communicated to the affected party, subject to the court’s power to extend that time before or after it expires. The provision is modelled on section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act.
Currently, Manitoba has no general limitation period for judicial review. Delay is instead addressed through the court’s discretion, as the Manitoba Court of Appeal recently considered in Delwar v Beausejour (Town of), 2025 MBCA 84. The Commission’s position is that a fixed deadline would render such disputes unnecessary. A fixed deadline would also, however, leave considerably less room for a party who is slow to decide whether to challenge a decision.
Other Significant Changes
The draft statute would require the decision-maker to compile the record of the proceeding and file it within 30 days after the Attorney General is served. If the decision-maker is unable or unwilling to do so, the Attorney General would be required to prepare the record.
The record is not currently defined in Manitoba, and its contents have been the subject of dispute. New evidence would be admissible only in limited circumstances, building on the exceptions recognized in Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22. Evidence that could have been placed before the decision-maker with reasonable diligence would not be admitted.
An applicant would be required to name as respondents all persons directly affected by the order sought. Where there are none, the Attorney General of Manitoba would be the default respondent. The decision-maker itself would participate only with leave of the court, consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s caution against tribunals defending their own decisions in Ontario (Energy Board) v Ontario Power Generation Inc, 2015 SCC 44.
Commencing an application would not automatically stay the decision under review, although a party could seek a stay from the court. The Commission’s consultation paper had initially proposed an automatic stay, but the Commission changed its position after receiving feedback that an automatic stay would encourage tactical applications.
An appeal from the Court of King’s Bench to the Court of Appeal would require leave. The report proposes two alternative tests. The first places primary emphasis on whether the appeal raises a question of law warranting a second review. The second adopts the existing Manitoba test for leave to appeal interlocutory orders, as discussed in Knight v Daraden Investments Ltd, 2022 MBCA 69, which considers the merit of the proposed appeal and the importance of the issues it raises.
What Would Remain Largely Unchanged
On substantive review, the draft statute largely codifies Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. Reasonableness would be the default standard. Correctness would apply to the categories identified in Vavilov, together with the additional category recognized in Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Entertainment Software Association, 2022 SCC 30. Allegations of a breach of natural justice would be determined by the court on its own assessment. The Commission expressly declined to resolve how the approach in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, interacts with the constitutional category, leaving that question to the courts.
The default remedy would remain an order quashing the decision and remitting the matter to the decision-maker. Consistent with Vavilov, the court could direct a particular outcome or make the decision itself only where the result is inevitable or where urgency makes remittal inappropriate. A decision would not be set aside for an error that clearly would not have affected the result. The court would also retain its discretion to refuse relief on established common law grounds, such as the availability of an adequate alternative remedy (Harelkin v University of Regina, [1979] 2 SCR 561). Damages would not be available on judicial review itself, consistent with Vancouver (City) v Ward, 2010 SCC 27, although a claim for damages could be joined with the application where appropriate.
The statute would apply broadly. Relying on Auer v Auer, 2024 SCC 36, the Commission confirms that decisions of cabinet and individual ministers remain subject to review. The statute would not, however, displace the many Manitoba statutes that prescribe their own routes of review or appeal, and it does not address statutory appeals. The Commission recommends that the government seek comment on whether those specialized routes remain justified.
Next Steps
The report is a recommendation and does not have the force of law. At the time of writing, no bill implementing the recommendations appears to have been introduced, and any legislation that is introduced may differ from the Commission’s draft.
Whether or not the statute is enacted, parties who receive a government decision they consider to be wrong should seek legal advice promptly. Parties preparing for a hearing before a tribunal or regulator should also bear in mind that, in most cases, the record before the decision-maker will be the record before the reviewing court.
Taylor McCaffrey LLP acts for clients in judicial review proceedings involving federal, provincial and municipal decision-makers. Readers with questions about a particular decision or an upcoming hearing are encouraged to contact the firm.
DISCLAIMER: This article is presented for informational purposes only. The views expressed are solely the author(s)’ and should not be attributed to any other party, including Taylor McCaffrey LLP. While care is taken to ensure accuracy, before relying upon the information in this article you should seek and be guided by legal advice based on your specific circumstances. The information in this article does not constitute legal advice or solicitation and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Any unsolicited information sent to the author(s) cannot be considered to be solicitor-client privileged.
If you would like legal advice, kindly contact the author(s) directly or the firm's Chief Operating Officer at pknapp@tmlawyers.com, or 204.988.0356.
Related Articles, News & Resources
See All Related Resources
Simon Q.K. Garfinkel
Associatesgarfinkel@tmlawyers.com
Simon practices in the Advocacy, Litigation and Dispute Resolution department.
Peter Mueller
Partnerpmueller@tmlawyers.com
Peter Mueller is a litigation lawyer who helps businesses, not-for-profits, and employers resolve disputes before courts, arbitration panels, and government tribunals. Licensed in Manitoba and Nunavut, Peter’s practice is designed around dispute resolution and advocacy, providing clear, strategic advice that supports practical business decisions and minimizes risk.