Time for a pluralist approach? Judicial review of non-state decision makers in Canada^†.

This article examines the impact of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in *Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (Judicial Committee) v Wall* on the supervisory jurisdiction of common law courts, particularly its reliance on a strict state/non-state dichotomy to limit judicial review. It argues that this bright-line test has narrowed courts' oversight of powerful non-state decision makers—including universities, Indigenous governing bodies exercising inherent authority, and religious associations—thereby reducing available remedies for individuals affected by unfair decisions. The article critiques the continued use of the public law–private law divide as the primary framework for delineating judicial review's boundaries and proposes legal pluralism as a more nuanced and coherent alternative. Legal pluralism better accounts for the coexistence of multiple normative orders, including Indigenous legal systems, and aligns more closely with the rule of law's aim to reduce arbitrariness in the exercise of power, suggesting courts should assess non-state authority contextually rather than exclude it categorically.