Articles
<< back to all ArticlesEye On Regulation
The case of Astolfi v Alberta Labour Relations Board (2026 ABKB 45) is a recent statement from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench reaffirming that reconsideration is a narrow and exceptional remedy.
Mr. Astolfi (Astolfi) was terminated by his employer and filed a Disciplinary Action Complaint, alleging harassment in the workplace. An Officer investigated the complaint and found there was no causal connection between his compliance with occupational health and safety requirements and his termination.
Astolfi appealed the Officer’s decision to the Alberta Labour Relations Board, the appeal body under the governing legislation. The Board dismissed the appeal. He then sought reconsideration, which was denied. Due to an administrative error, the matter proceeded to a second reconsideration decision, which was again denied. Astolfi sought judicial review of that second reconsideration decision, resulting in this judicial review case before the Court of King’s Bench.
Before the Court, Astolfi argued that the Board’s refusal was unreasonable and failed to properly engage with the issues raised in his reconsideration request.
The Board took the position that its reconsideration power is discretionary, that Astolfi was effectively attempting to reargue the merits of the original decision, and that there was no basis to reopen the matter. It maintained that its decision was reasonable and consistent with its established approach.
The Court confirmed that a refusal to reconsider is subject to judicial review, notwithstanding its discretionary and “internal” nature. Applying the framework from Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, the Court held that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness. The question is not whether the Court would have reached a different result, but whether the decision is justified, transparent, and intelligible, and provided a rationale chain of analysis consistent with their conclusion.
On the facts, the Court upheld the Board’s decision. It found that the Board reasonably concluded that the reconsideration request did not raise new evidence, identify a reviewable error, or otherwise justify reopening the matter. The Court accepted that reconsideration is not an opportunity to relitigate issues already decided, and that the Board’s reasons, while concise, were sufficient to explain why the request was refused.
The decision reinforces that, while reconsideration decisions may appear procedural or low-stakes, they must still meet the requirements of reasonableness. At the same time, courts will afford meaningful deference where the decision-maker clearly explains why the high threshold for reconsideration has not been met.
our two cents for free
There appears to be a growing trend across regulators of dissatisfied parties treating decisions made as something that must always be appealed up to the next level. This is resulting in more internal appeals and, in turn, an increase in reconsideration requests.
Reconsideration decisions are easy to treat as administrative “cleanup”, but courts will still expect them to withstand scrutiny. A short decision may be fine, but an unsupported one is not.
Regulators should clearly (even briefly) articulate why reconsideration is being refused – most commonly because there is no new evidence, no clear error, or the request is simply an attempt to reargue the case. Framing reconsideration as a narrow, exceptional remedy, and applying that approach consistently, will go a long way in defending these decisions if challenged.
question
When your organization refuses reconsideration, are you clearly articulating why the request does not meet the threshold for reopening the decision?
Eye on Regulation is RMRF’s monthly newsletter for the professional regulatory community. Each month we offer:
- A Case: a brief summary of a recent and relevant case;
- Our Two Cents for Free: practical insight inspired by the files on our desks right now; and
- A Question: something to get you thinking about ways to enhance your work.
This newsletter is for information only and does not constitute legal advice.
