Ahmed v. Canada (Revenue Agency)

Ahmed v. Canada (Revenue Agency)

The Respondent's unambiguous offer to provide Individual Feedback on the staffing extension and to agree a decision-maker removed any live controversy and, because the extended appointee no longer held the position so setting aside the Extension Decision would have no practical effect, the application was moot and was properly struck under the 'knockout punch' standard; costs of $500 awarded to the Respondent.

Citation
2023 FC 1107
Parties
Applicant (responding Party): Adeeb Ahmed; Respondent (moving Party): Canada Revenue Agency
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Motion to Strike Under Rule 369; Application Struck as Moot
Outcome
Motion granted; application for judicial review struck as moot and dismissed
Legal Topics
Mootness, Procedural Fairness, Motion to Strike, Judicial Review, Staffing/recourse Procedures, Costs
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Employment Law Public Law Mootness Procedural Fairness Motion to Strike Judicial Review Staffing/recourse Procedures +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adeeb Ahmed

Applicant (responding Party)

Canada Revenue Agency

Respondent (moving Party)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Motion to Strike Under Rule 369; Application Struck as Moot

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for judicial review is moot following the Respondent's offer of Individual Feedback (IF)
  2. 2 Whether the application ought to be struck under the 'knockout punch' standard for motions to strike
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness, bias or deficient certified tribunal record justify continuing the application

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent's unambiguous offer to provide Individual Feedback on the staffing extension and to agree a decision-maker removed any live controversy and, because the extended appointee no longer held the position so setting aside the Extension Decision would have no practical effect, the application was moot and was properly struck under the 'knockout punch' standard; costs of $500 awarded to the Respondent.

Court Disposition

Motion granted; application for judicial review struck as moot and dismissed

Orders

  • Applicant entitled to schedule Individual Feedback in respect of the June 2022 staffing extension at a mutually convenient date and time before a decision-maker to be agreed by the parties
  • Motion is granted and the application for judicial review is dismissed as moot