Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant challenged a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) decision requiring repayment of over $30,000 in COVID-related benefits.

• The court found the judicial review application procedurally deficient for failing to identify a specific decision or state any legal or factual basis for the challenge.

• Multiple CRA benefit decisions were grouped improperly in a single judicial review without required court authorization.

• The application lacked a concise statement of grounds and failed to comply with Federal Court Rules, including Rules 301 and 302.

• The court concluded the application was manifestly defective and had no reasonable chance of success.

• Costs of $250 were awarded to the federal government due to the applicant’s failure to respond to the motion.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and nature of the dispute

The applicant, Nazik Merzouki, filed a judicial review application against the Attorney General of Canada, seeking to challenge a decision by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The dispute involved the CRA’s June 6, 2025 decision concerning the applicant’s eligibility for federal COVID-19 benefits. Specifically, the CRA found the applicant ineligible for three separate programs: the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB or PCU), the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB or PCRE), and the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit (CWLB or PCTCC). As a result, the applicant was ordered to repay more than $30,000 in total.

The applicant submitted a general request for judicial review, asking the court to reconsider CRA's decision and relieve her from the obligation to repay the full amount. However, the application lacked critical details. It did not specify which of the CRA’s three decisions was being challenged, failed to provide a factual basis for the challenge, and omitted a concise legal argument. No supporting affidavit or proper request for procedural remedy was included.

Procedural issues and court findings

The court reviewed the federal government’s motion to strike the application on procedural grounds. The respondent argued that the application did not meet the basic requirements set out in the Federal Courts Rules. Specifically, it did not identify a single decision as required under Rule 301(c)(ii), and improperly challenged multiple decisions without obtaining permission from the court as required under Rule 302.

The court agreed with the respondent. It held that the application failed to meet even the minimum threshold to proceed, lacking clarity, legal grounds, and supporting facts. Because the applicant did not respond to the motion or request an extension, the court ruled on the matter without her participation.

Outcome and cost award

The court struck the application in its entirety and dismissed the judicial review. It determined that the application was so deficient that amending it would not be permitted. As a result of the failed application, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $250 in costs, representing an all-inclusive award for the government’s expenses in bringing the motion.