Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appellant’s petition for judicial review was struck on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable claim.

• Most claims related to damages, negligence, and bias were outside the scope of judicial review.

• The Federal Court, not the BC Supreme Court, had exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions made by the National Research Council.

• Allegations of bias and corruption were unsupported and based solely on speculative or discriminatory assertions.

• The appellant’s expectation of expert panel review had no basis in law or program procedure.

• The appeal was dismissed and the respondents were awarded ordinary costs, with special costs denied.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and filing history
Nova-BioRubber Green Technologies Inc., a biotechnology company developing hypoallergenic bio-latex from plants, submitted unsolicited funding applications to two public entities: the National Research Council Canada (NRC) through its Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP), and to the BC Fast Pilot Program (BCFPP), jointly administered by NRC and Innovate BC. The applications were rejected in both 2018 and 2020–2022 on grounds such as lack of funds, ineligible expenses, and insufficient company resources.

On June 23, 2022, Nova-BioRubber filed a petition in the British Columbia Supreme Court seeking judicial review of those denials. The petition claimed breaches of fairness, negligence, fiduciary duty, statutory obligations, and alleged bias and corruption. Additionally, the petition sought not only to have the funding decisions reconsidered but also to obtain financial compensation for various losses including economic damages and emotional distress.

Proceedings before the chambers judge
The respondents applied to strike the petition. The chambers judge found that while allegations of procedural unfairness might fall within the scope of judicial review, most of the appellant's claims — including those for damages — were outside that scope. She further held that the 2018 funding decisions by NRC fell under exclusive Federal Court jurisdiction. Ultimately, she struck the entire petition without leave to amend, concluding it disclosed no reasonable claim.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal
Nova-BioRubber appealed, arguing that the chambers judge erred by not recognizing alleged procedural breaches, bias, and the appellant's entitlement to review by independent experts. The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, finding no basis in law or fact for a duty to appoint such experts, nor any evidence supporting claims of corruption or conflict of interest. It emphasized that decisions by the NRC are federal in nature and subject only to Federal Court review. The Court also noted that the petition's claims for damages are not legally available under a judicial review proceeding.

Decision and outcome
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on July 8, 2025. It affirmed the lower court’s decision that the petition disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that striking it without leave to amend was appropriate. The court awarded ordinary costs to the respondents but declined to grant special costs, despite the appellant's representative having made inappropriate and unfounded allegations against the judge and government officials. The Court opted for restraint, citing the lack of prior formal warning to the appellant’s representative about the consequences of such conduct.