Key Takeaways
- Statutory appeals generally attract appellate standards: correctness for law, more deference on facts.
- Judicial review generally uses a reasonableness standard.
- Some internal appeals have their own statutory test, such as CPA Ontario’s “unreasonable” threshold (CPA Act, s. 37(5)).
- HPARB reviews consider adequacy of investigation and reasonableness (e.g. Vet Act, s. 25(11)).
Why It Matters
The standard of review determines how much an appeal body defers to the original decision. Arguments framed as errors of law or unreasonable reasoning tend to be more effective than disagreement with how evidence was weighed.
Statutory Tests
Some statutes set the test directly. The CPA Ontario appeal committee may substitute its decision or order a new hearing only if it determines the decision appealed from is unreasonable (CPA Act, s. 37(5)). Under the Veterinarians Act, HPARB considers the adequacy of the investigation and the reasonableness of the decision (s. 25(11)).
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I argue the panel should have believed me?
That is a factual argument and usually receives significant deference on appeal.
What counts as an error of law?
Applying the wrong legal test, misinterpreting a statute, or failing to consider a required factor are common examples.
Sources
Statutory references are to the provisions listed below, as consolidated on e-Laws when this page was prepared.
- Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, s. 37 — Checked November 10, 2026.
- Veterinarians Act, s. 25 — Checked November 10, 2026.