The Applicant sought Judicial Review of a decision under the Traffic Safety Act. Justice Marion found the decision reasonable and dismissed the Application.

On Judicial Review, the Court has discretion to grant remedies, including addressing the question of whether to consider an issue raised for the first time on Judicial Review. Judicial Reviews are not, however, de novo hearings and the Court must exercise its supervisory function. Subject to some exceptions, the Court must assess the decision of an administrative tribunal based on “the record, issues raised, and arguments made before the tribunal at the time of review”.

This is supported by Rule 3.22, which applies to the evidence allowed on Judicial Reviews. It asks the Court to consider only the certified copy of the record of proceedings subject to review; if Questioning was permitted, a transcript of that Questioning; Affidavit evidence if the relief sought is not for setting aside the decision; and other evidence permitted by the Court or enactments. Therefore, raising new issues on Judicial Review is not the norm, and the Court will not exercise its discretion to entertain new issues where the issues could have been but were not raised before the administrative tribunal.

Justice Marion found that the Applicant’s position on Judicial Review was inconsistent with his position before the adjudicator and in fact, the adjudicator’s conclusion was reasonable in the circumstances, taking into account the issues raised by the Applicant before him. Furthermore, Marion J. relied on Rule 3.68 to state that applicants have a duty, whether self-represented or not, to “do the appropriate work up front and raise arguments, cancellation grounds and issues before adjudicators that are reasonably grounded in the facts and law and are not frivolous, irrelevant, improper or an abuse of process”.