Kasirer J confirmed the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal to strike a Federal Court application of Iris Technologies Inc., which sought a declaration that Iris was denied procedural fairness in the audit and assessment process, that the resulting assessments were made without an evidentiary foundation and that they were issued for the improper purpose of depriving the Federal Court of jurisdiction to hear its administrative law grievances. He stated (at paras. 10-11):
[T]wo of the claims raised … — those alleging procedural unfairness and a lack of an evidentiary foundation — are … best characterized as attacks on the correctness of the assessment which is the proper subject matter of an appeal to the Tax Court under the express authority of the ETA. …
Iris’ third claim, that the Minister acted with an improper purpose … should … be struck here because Iris did not allege facts in its application that, if taken to be true, would give any support to this claim.
Regarding the third claim, Kasirer J noted (at para. 41, referring to JP Morgan) that:
[J]urisdiction to provide relief from reprehensible conduct of the Minister would fall to the Federal Court exercising its exclusive jurisdiction in judicial review under s. 18.1 of the FCA.
Kasirer J also agreed with the Federal Court of Appeal that the Court should not exercise its discretion by making a declaration that will not “have any real or practical effect,” and that “[i]ssuing a declaration that does not quash or vacate the assessments would serve little or no purpose” (quoted at para. 58).