Background
In May 2025, the plaintiff 9105-8015 Québec Inc. initiated judicial review of a decision by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (ACIA) to cancel its operating license, alleging procedural unfairness and arbitrary action. The ACIA had suspended the plaintiff’s license in December 2024 and cancelled it in April 2025. The plaintiff contended that the ACIA’s inspection and investigation process violated natural justice principles, imposed control measures without clear guidance, failed to follow its own internal policies, and ignored significant remedial changes the plaintiff implemented after the suspension.
The parties engaged in good-faith discussions to address irregularities in the plaintiff’s judicial review application, but these negotiations stalled when the plaintiff’s original counsel withdrew on August 20, 2025, citing breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. On January 27, 2026, the court granted the withdrawal and ordered the plaintiff to retain new counsel by February 27, 2026. The plaintiff failed to meet this deadline. On March 25, 2026—one month late—the plaintiff attempted to file a notice of change of counsel and a motion seeking permission to amend its application and extend the deadline for hiring new counsel. The court rejected these documents as untimely.
On April 22, 2026, the plaintiff filed this motion seeking a time extension to complete the change of legal representation.
The Court’s Holding
Judge François Joyal granted the motion, applying the established four-factor test from Canada (Attorney General) v. Hennelly: whether the applicant demonstrated (1) constant intention to pursue the claim; (2) merit in the claim; (3) absence of prejudice to the defendant; and (4) reasonable justification for the delay. While no single factor is dispositive, the overarching principle is that justice must be served between the parties.
The court found all four factors favored granting the extension. The plaintiff showed continuous intent to pursue its claim despite procedural obstacles and the forced change of counsel. The judicial review application demonstrated defensible merit based on alleged procedural fairness violations and arbitrary decision-making by the ACIA. The defendant suffered no prejudice from the extension, and notably did not argue otherwise; denying the relief would force unwanted self-representation, which would hinder rather than expedite resolution. The one-month delay in hiring new counsel was partially justified by the plaintiff’s efforts to address the defendant’s pleading concerns and prepare a comprehensive amended application.
Judge Joyal rejected the defendant’s alternative request to dismiss the entire case, holding that dismissal under Federal Court Rules Article 168 is an extreme remedy reserved for truly irremediable procedural failures, not temporary delays in counsel changes. The court directed the clerk to accept the notice of change of counsel filed on March 25, 2026, and granted the plaintiff 15 days to file a motion to amend its judicial review application and establish a procedural framework for the litigation. No costs were awarded, citing deficiencies in the motion materials, though these did not prove fatal to the plaintiff’s request.
Key Takeaways
- Time extensions to meet procedural deadlines, including deadlines to hire new counsel, may be granted when justice between the parties favors relief and a reasonable explanation exists for the delay.
- A party’s demonstrated constant intent to pursue its claim, combined with merit in the underlying matter, can justify extending deadlines even where good explanation for the delay is partial rather than complete.
- Good-faith efforts to address a defendant’s pleading concerns and efforts to prepare an improved amended application constitute legitimate justifications for procedural delays.
- Dismissal of a case for procedural non-compliance is an extreme remedy; courts will exercise discretion to prevent procedural defects from becoming instruments of injustice when the core issue (here, legal representation) is readily remediable.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance on judicial discretion to extend procedural deadlines in the Federal Court of Canada, particularly regarding counsel changes and legal representation. It reflects the court’s recognition that rigid adherence to procedural rules should not prevent access to justice when a party has demonstrated genuine intent to pursue valid claims and provides a reasonable explanation for delay. The decision illustrates the balance between procedural efficiency and fairness: rather than dismiss the case or leave the plaintiff without counsel, the court removed the procedural barrier so the underlying merits could be addressed.
More broadly, the ruling signals to Federal Court practitioners that procedural violations, including missed filing deadlines and defective affidavits, are serious concerns but not automatically fatal. Courts will exercise discretion to prevent such defects from becoming mechanisms of injustice when the violation stems from procedural necessity rather than negligence. However, Judge Joyal’s strong emphasis that the Federal Court Rules are binding regulations requiring strict compliance—cautioning new counsel to familiarize themselves thoroughly with the Rules and comply with “the greatest rigor”—reflects the court’s expectation that practitioners will treat these requirements with appropriate seriousness going forward.