The judgment of the court was delivered by
 SHARPE J.A.: — The Indian Residential School Settlement
Agreement (the “IRSSA”) is a national settlement resolving vari-
ous class action proceedings against the Attorney General of Can-
ada (“Canada”) and other parties implicated in the deplorable
history of physical, sexual and psychological abuse suffered by
aboriginal children at residential schools. IRSSA provides for
compensation to the victims of residential schools. A Common
Experience Payment is available immediately to all eligible class
members who had resided in a residential school. An Independent
Assessment Process (“IAP”), a specially designed inquisitorial
process involving trained adjudicators, was established to provide
compensation to claimants who could show that they had suffered
serious physical or sexual abuse or psychological harm at a resi-
 The central issue on this appeal is the availability of
recourse to the courts with respect to the determination of
claims made under the IAP.
 The respondent M.F. made a claim pursuant to the IAP.
His claim was rejected by an adjudicator, by a review adjudicator and by a re-review adjudicator, on the ground that he was
not an eligible claimant. He brought a request for directions
(“RFD”) before the judge designated under the IRSSA’s court
administration protocol as the Eastern Administrative Judge,
challenging the rejection of his claim.
 Shortly before the RFD was heard, Canada discovered and
disclosed two documents that had not been considered by the
IAP adjudicators and that arguably demonstrated that M.F.
was an eligible claimant. Canada was prepared to consent to an
order remitting M.F.’s claim to the chief adjudicator for reconsideration. M.F. refused to consent and the RFD proceeded.
 The administrative judge held that he had the authority to
review the decisions of the IAP adjudicators. He engaged in a
detailed review of the record and the evidence and concluded
that, quite apart from the newly discovered evidence, M.F. was
entitled to compensation. He refused to remit the claim back to
the chief adjudicator for reconsideration, and found that he was
entitled to award M.F. compensation, to quantify the award, and
determine the appropriate quantum of M.F.’s IAP costs.
 On appeal, Canada submits that the administrative judge
erred by assuming jurisdiction over M.F.’s claim without applying the proper threshold for judicial recourse under the IAP, by
interfering with the factual findings of the IAP adjudicators, and