Checked in with an old university friend of mine a

Checked in with an old university friend of mine and I asked him about the judicial review process. He admittedly is not that familiar with it but he asked around and told me basically it depends upon the type of complaint filed. This is important because judges are loathe to overturn a decision made by an "expert" who is someone with special knowledge in the area in which they work. He also said that ministers have some leeway with regards to acting in the public interest. He cited an example which is full of technical jargon but in short if an agency is seen to be acting to protect the public from potential harm, even though they might be wrong, a judge may order a review of the process but not make an award of either financial compensation nor order the license, in this case be awarded. It would be sent back with certain aspects to reconsider. But he also said the minister can and obviously did in this case, exercise their discretion, he is assuming in the public interest, to not award the license. Even though all technical matters may have been deemed to be okay, there is still some leeway for discretion. It is obvious this use of discretion is going to be challenged which is why there is that process in the first place. For example, a person wishing to be accepted to the bar has one DUI on their record and might be over looked. A number of DUI's may give cause to not allow that person to practise law, even though they may have graduated at the top of their class and passed the bar exams. Challenging that ruling a judge may determine the law society the public interest in mind when refusing licensing. I asked about the length of a hearing and that really is dependent on the complexity of the case, the amount of evidence being offered to be considered, and the availability of a judge to heard the case. In short there is no hard defined time line from start to finish.