Yablecki v. Canada (Attorney General)
The Federal Court did not commit a reviewable error in dismissing the application for judicial review for non-compliance with the Federal Courts Rules and court orders because the appellant was put on notice of requirements and deadlines, was granted extensions and warned about non-compliant affidavits, and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2025 FCA 79
- Parties
- Appellant: David J. Yablecki; Respondent: Attorney General of Canada
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 8 April 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal (decided on Written Representations)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Eligibility for Statutory Benefits, Failure to Comply With Court Rules, Dismissal for Delay
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David J. Yablecki
Appellant
Attorney General of Canada
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal (decided on Written Representations)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Federal Court erred in dismissing the application for judicial review for failure to comply with the Federal Courts Rules and Court orders
- 2 Whether registry or Court staff failures relieved the appellant of compliance obligations
- 3 What standard of review applies to a discretionary dismissal for non-compliance
Ratio Decidendi
The Federal Court did not commit a reviewable error in dismissing the application for judicial review for non-compliance with the Federal Courts Rules and court orders because the appellant was put on notice of requirements and deadlines, was granted extensions and warned about non-compliant affidavits, and the dismissal was a permissible exercise of judicial discretion not vitiated by legal or palpable overriding error.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs to the respondent in the all-inclusive amount of $300
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Yablecki v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2025-04-08 Neutral citation 2025 FCA 79 File numbers A-319-23 Decision Content Date: 20250408 Docket: A-319-23 Citation: 2025 FCA 79 CORAM: LOCKE J.A. MACTAVISH J.A. HECKMAN J.A. BETWEEN: DAVID J. YABLECKI Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 8, 2025. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: LOCKE J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: MACTAVISH J.A. HECKMAN J.A. Date: 20250408 Docket: A-319-23 Citation: 2025 FCA 79 CORAM: LOCKE J.A. MACTAVISH J.A. HECKMAN J.A. BETWEEN: DAVID J. YABLECKI Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LOCKE J.A. [1] These reasons follow the parties’ agreement that the present appeal be decided on the basis of the written submissions and without an oral hearing. [2] On October 26, 2022, David Yablecki filed an application for judicial review of two decisions by the Canada Revenue Agency finding him ineligible for the Canada Recovery Benefit and the Canada Emergency Response Benefit. The application for judicial review was summarily dismissed by the Federal Court on October 27, 2023 citing Mr. Yablecki’s repeated failures to meet deadlines set either by the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106 (the Rules), or by Court Order. I agree generally with the description of events provided by the respondent in paragraphs 4 to 15 of his memorandum of fact and law. This includes extensions granted on July 24, 2023 and August 23, 2023 of previous deadlines that Mr. Yablecki had missed. [3] Mr. Yablecki appeals the dismissal of his application for judicial review to this Court. He argues, as he did before the Federal Court, that representatives of the Court Registry failed to inform him of deadlines for steps to be taken in his application, and of requirements for affidavit evidence. I agree with the Federal Court that the Rules “provide answers to just about all the practical questions that arise in proceedings in the Federal Courts”: see Bernard v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2015 FCA 263, 479 N.R. 189 at para. 41. I also agree with the Federal Court that, while “[s]elf-represented litigants deserve latitude to the extent necessary to ensure that they have the opportunity to advance their case”, Mr. Yablecki was given ample opportunity to obtain legal advice and to comply with the Rules. If he was unaware of deadlines and the requirements of the Rules when he commenced the application for judicial review, he was clearly put on notice by the status review, and the July 24, 2023 Order that arose from it, of the upcoming steps in the proceeding and the related deadlines. Moreover, Mr. Yablecki was alerted on August 23, 2023 that the documents he submitted as affidavit evidence were non-compliant. Yet, despite being given an explanation as to why the original documents were non-compliant, and being allowed additional time to file compliant documents, he failed to do so. [4] The Federal Court’s dismissal of Mr. Yablecki’s application for judicial review was a discretionary decision. This Court will intervene in such a decision only if the Federal Court has made an error of law, or a palpable and overriding error on a question of fact or of mixed fact and law from which no error of law is extricable: see Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215, 402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 at paras. 28, 71-72; Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 at paras. 8, 10, 36. A palpable error is one that is obvious. An overriding error is one that goes to the very core of the outcome of the case. [5] Having carefully considered Mr. Yablecki’s submissions, I see no reviewable error by the Federal Court in this case. Accordingly, I would dismiss this appeal with costs in the all-inclusive amount of $300. "George R. Locke" J.A. "I agree. Anne L. Mactavish J.A." "I agree. Gerald Heckman J.A." FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-319-23 STYLE OF CAUSE: DAVID J. YABLECKI v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: LOCKE J.A. DATED: april 8, 2025 CONCURRED IN BY: MACTAVISH J.A. HECKMAN J.A. WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: David J. Yablecki For The Appellant Daniel Cortes-Blanquicet For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Shalene Curtis-Micallef Deputy Attorney General of Canada For The Respondent