Can a judicial review application be considered both in the merits of a decision on the professional misconduct of a bankruptcy trustee and in the subsequent decision determining the appropriate sanctions?

However, in Roy v. Poitras, 2006 FC 1386, a judicial review application was decided both with regard to a decision on the merits of the professional misconduct of a bankruptcy trustee and also with regard to a separate subsequent decision determining the appropriate sanctions. In that case, no party raised the provisions of Rule 302. Consequently, I find the decision in Roy v. Poitras is an example of how judicial review proceedings should proceed in such circumstances, but that it is of limited usefulness in determining the procedural vehicles which must be used in order to achieve such a result since the procedural issues were not raised in that case.