Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Ambiguity in the notice of application regarding which administrative decision(s) were being challenged.

• Failure to provide a complete and concise statement of grounds for judicial review as required by the Federal Courts Rules.

• Lack of response or participation by the applicant in the motion to strike proceedings.

• Procedural irregularities identified, including possible challenge to multiple decisions without court authorization.

• Insufficient factual allegations to support a viable claim for judicial review.

• The Court’s application of strict procedural standards led to the dismissal of the application and an award of costs to the respondent.

Facts of the case

Evens Baptiste sought judicial review in the Federal Court of a decision or decisions made by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The dispute centered on a letter from the CRA dated July 30, 2025, which communicated findings of ineligibility for several federal economic relief benefits: the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (PCU), the Canada Recovery Benefit (PCRE), and the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit (PCTCC). The applicant submitted a handwritten Federal Court form, referencing his tax returns and T4A slips for 2019 and 2020, and asserted that his income exceeded the $5,000 threshold required for these benefits. However, the application did not clearly specify which benefit or decision was being challenged, nor did it provide substantive grounds or details regarding any alleged error by the CRA.

Procedural context and legal framework

The Attorney General of Canada, as respondent, filed a written motion under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, seeking to strike the notice of application without leave to amend. The respondent argued that the notice failed to identify the specific administrative decision at issue and did not set out a clear and concise statement of the grounds for review, as required by the Rules. The applicant did not respond to the motion or seek an extension of time. The Court reviewed the legal standards for striking a notice of application, emphasizing that such a remedy is reserved for pleadings that are so fundamentally defective they cannot possibly succeed. The Court also underscored the importance of clarity and specificity in judicial review applications, especially when multiple decisions may be involved.

Discussion of policy terms and procedural requirements

Although the case was decided on procedural grounds, the underlying dispute related to the applicant’s eligibility for federal economic relief benefits administered by the CRA. These benefits, including the PCU, PCRE, and PCTCC, are governed by statutory and regulatory requirements, such as minimum income thresholds. The applicant’s assertion that his income was above $5,000 was not sufficiently particularized, and the notice of application did not identify which benefit or decision was at issue, nor did it articulate any legal or factual error by the CRA. The Court found that the notice failed to meet the requirements of Rule 301, which demands a clear identification of the decision under review and a concise statement of the grounds for relief.

Ruling and outcome

The Federal Court granted the respondent’s motion to strike, finding that the applicant’s notice of application was fundamentally irregular and did not meet the minimum procedural requirements under the Federal Courts Rules. The notice failed to identify the decision(s) being challenged and did not set out any grounds for review. As a result, the application was struck in its entirety without leave to amend. The Court ordered the applicant to pay costs to the respondent, fixed at $250. The Attorney General of Canada was the successful party, and the only monetary amount ordered was the award of costs in favor of the respondent, set at $250.