Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) filed a motion to strike a judicial review application on procedural grounds.

• The applicant, Adeeb Ahmed, was self-represented and did not respond to the motion.

• CRA argued that Ahmed failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before turning to the court.

• The court emphasized that motions to strike judicial review applications should be used sparingly.

• The legal test requires the application to be clearly improper and fatally flawed as to jurisdiction.

• The court found that the CRA failed to meet the second part of the test and dismissed the motion.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and procedural posture

The case involves an application for judicial review filed by Adeeb Ahmed against the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The specific nature of the dispute with the CRA is not detailed in the decision, but it is clear that the matter falls within the realm of administrative and tax law. On August 8, 2025, the CRA brought a motion in writing requesting three things: (1) that the application for judicial review be struck, (2) that certain procedural timelines be suspended under the Federal Courts Rules, and (3) that costs be awarded in its favor.

Ahmed, acting as a self-represented litigant, did not respond to the motion, despite having the opportunity to do so.

Legal arguments presented

The CRA’s primary argument was that the applicant failed to exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing the matter to court. This is a well-established principle in administrative law, where judicial review is generally seen as a remedy of last resort. The CRA cited multiple authorities to support its position and relied on the two-part test from prior jurisprudence, particularly JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc v Canada (National Revenue). According to this test, a judicial review application may be struck if it is clearly without merit and contains a fatal jurisdictional flaw.

The court’s analysis

While the court agreed with the legal framework presented by the CRA, it emphasized that motions to strike judicial review applications should be granted sparingly. The court reviewed the two-part test and concluded that the CRA had not satisfied the second part: it did not show that the flaws in Ahmed’s application went to the root of the court’s jurisdiction. Importantly, the court noted that it need not determine whether administrative remedies were available and adequate, because the threshold for striking the application had not been met.

Decision and outcome

The court dismissed the CRA’s motion to strike the judicial review application. It also ordered that the procedural timelines be suspended nunc pro tunc (retroactively) from August 8, 2025, until the date of the court’s decision. No costs were awarded, as the motion itself was denied. As a result, the judicial review application filed by Adeeb Ahmed remains active and will proceed to the next stage in the Federal Court process.