Jonathan Bachir-Legault

The applicant sought judicial review of a Canada Revenue Agency decision denying his Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) application.

The Agency had contacted the applicant's former employer, who stated the employment ended due to the conclusion of a contract, rather than a COVID-19 related reason.

The Agency officer failed to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to the employer's statement before denying the application.

The Federal Court held this was a breach of procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter was sent back for reconsideration by another officer.

The plaintiff, Her Majesty the Queen, brought a motion for summary judgment against agricultural producers who defaulted on advances guaranteed by the Minister under the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act.

The Minister became subrogated to the lender's rights after repaying the advance.

The defendants argued the six-year limitation period had expired, asserting it began when they defaulted or the administrator requested payment.

The Court held the limitation period began when the Minister paid the administrator, rendering the action timely, and granted summary judgment for $316,029.96 plus interest.

The applicant sought an order of confidentiality and a permanent publication ban on certain financial and third-party information contained in the common evidentiary record for a judicial review application regarding Canada Revenue Agency requests for administrative assistance from foreign authorities.

The Federal Court partially granted the motion, ordering the redaction of personal identifiers such as social insurance numbers, medical information, and names of minor children.

However, the Court refused to order the confidentiality of the applicant's financial information and third-party information, finding that the open court principle outweighed the privacy interests in this case and that the information was necessary for the underlying proceeding.

The applicant brought a motion seeking further responses to undertakings given by an auditor during cross-examination on an affidavit.

The applicant argued that the documents provided in response referenced other undisclosed documents.

The Court dismissed the motion, finding that the provided documents were self-contained, fulfilled the specific undertakings given, and the auditor had not undertaken to produce every referenced document.