Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Attorney General of Canada moved to strike Mr. Turgeon's judicial review application for fundamental procedural deficiencies

• Mr. Turgeon's application failed to explain the content of the contested CRA decision or why it was unreasonable

• No specific remedy was requested in the notice of application, contrary to Rule 301 of the Federal Courts Rules

• Affidavits are generally inadmissible in motions to strike, with limited exceptions for documents incorporated by reference

• The JP Morgan test requires that an application be "manifestly improper to the point of having no chance of success" to warrant striking

• Rule 301 of the Federal Courts Rules is mandatory; judicial review must be limited to the grounds and remedy stated in the notice of application

Background and factual context

Keanu Turgeon, a self-represented litigant from Greenfield Park, Quebec, filed a judicial review application challenging a decision by the Canada Revenue Agency dated September 2, 2025, which refused his eligibility for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (PCU). Mr. Turgeon claimed he had earned the required $5,000 eligibility income, submitted all requested documents including bank statements from 2019-2020, tax assessments, and subcontractor certificates, and met all PCU eligibility criteria.

The Attorney General's motion to strike

The Attorney General filed a written motion under Rules 301, 364, and 369 of the Federal Courts Rules seeking to strike the judicial review application. The Crown argued that Mr. Turgeon's notice of application contained fundamental defects preventing the Federal Court from hearing the matter, was destined to fail, and disclosed no viable administrative law action. Specifically, the Attorney General contended that the application included no allegations explaining the content of the contested decision, no grounds supporting that it was unreasonable, and no statement of the remedy sought.

Applicable legal framework for motions to strike

The Court applied the test from Canada (National Revenue) v. JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada), 2013 FCA 250, which permits striking a notice of application only when it is "manifestly improper to the point of having no chance of success." A fundamental and manifest defect exists where: the notice reveals no viable administrative law cause of action that can be brought before the Federal Court; the Federal Courts Act or another legal principle prohibits the Court from ruling on the administrative law remedy; or the Court cannot grant the relief requested in the notice of application. The Court must read the application to grasp its true nature and make a realistic assessment through a global and practical reading.

Admissibility of evidence in motions to strike

The Court addressed Mr. Turgeon's affidavit sworn December 17, 2025, and accompanying exhibits (Exhibits A to D). Under established principles from JP Morgan, affidavits are generally inadmissible to support motions to strike judicial review applications because they may cause delays through cross-examinations, and facts alleged in the notice are presumed true for purposes of the motion. However, an exception applies for documents mentioned and incorporated by reference in the notice of application. The Court found that only the supporting documents referenced in Mr. Turgeon's application—income attestation letters, bank statements 2019-2020, and tax records 2019-2020—could be considered. The "Affidavit Demandeur" (Exhibit D) itself was inadmissible because it is prohibited to file an affidavit as an exhibit to another affidavit.

Analysis of the application's deficiencies

Rule 301(e) of the Rules requires applicants to present a complete and concise statement of the grounds for challenging the decision, while Rule 301(d) requires a precise statement of the remedy sought. Mr. Turgeon's application contained neither. His statement that he "met the eligibility criteria" did not constitute a complete and concise statement of grounds that should encompass all legal arguments and essential facts warranting judicial review. Even accepting his factual allegations as true, these facts revealed no viable administrative law cause of action because he failed to indicate how they challenged the impugned decision. He also failed to identify the grounds for contesting the decision and did not explain the nature of the contested decision. Without grounds alleging error by the administrative decision-maker and without a precise statement of remedy, a reviewing judge cannot fulfill the Court's function of reviewing the reasonableness of administrative decisions.

The ruling and outcome

Justice Tsimberis granted the Attorney General's motion and dismissed Mr. Turgeon's judicial review application. The Court concluded that the application was destined to fail because it contained a fundamental and manifest defect undermining the Court's capacity to process the matter. The Attorney General of Canada, represented by Me Mathieu Lamontagne, was awarded costs of $250.