Case information

Administrative law — Judicial Review — Appeals — Procedure — Self-represented litigants — Extensions of time — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in dismissing for delay without meaningfully engaging with medical evidence and Charter infused equality considerations raised by the request for accommodation — Whether status review and delay powers should be applied purposively to provide substantive, not merely formal, equality to disabled self-represented litigants including through extensions of time where required — Whether treating a litigant’s ability to file some materials as proof that they can meet all timelines without accommodation reflects an unreasonable and discriminatory approach to case management — Whether it is reasonable to dismiss a case without any acknowledgment of the applicant’s limitations and impacts of disabilities and health issues — Whether the application for leave to appeal raises an issue of public importance.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant filed an application for judicial review in August 2022, seeking to challenge decisions of the Minister of National Revenue. By June 2023, the applicant had not yet filed his trial record. The Federal Court declined to dismiss the application for delay and granted the applicant an additional delay to file his record. In August 2023, the applicant’s motion for another extension of time and other relief was dismissed, and his application for judicial review was dismissed accordingly. In January 2025, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal required the applicant to file, within 30 days, representations as to why his appeal should not be dismissed for delay, as it had not yet been perfected. In March 2025, a panel of the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the applicant had not justified the delay in perfecting the appeal and had not proposed a reasonable timetable to do so.