Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• CRA's decision to deem the Applicant's Individual Feedback (IF) request ineligible was challenged on grounds of procedural unfairness and unreasonableness.

• Significant portions of the Applicant's affidavit were struck for referencing information not before the decision-maker or relating to separate proceedings.

• Whether converting the IF process from an oral to a written format violated the Applicant's accommodation measures and procedural rights was a central dispute.

• Allegations of bias against the Hiring Manager were unsupported by material evidence, and the Court applied the presumption of impartiality afforded to administrative decision-makers.

• The Applicant's failure to particularize concerns of arbitrary treatment — despite multiple opportunities and extensions — was foundational to the ineligibility finding.

• No breach of disclosure obligations was established, as the CRA provided all relevant records and reasonably declined requests for information outside the scope of the staffing action under review.

Background and facts of the case
Adeeb Ahmed, a self-represented employee of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), brought an application for judicial review before the Federal Court challenging a May 8, 2023 decision of the CRA that rendered his request for Individual Feedback (IF) regarding a staffing decision ineligible. The matter was heard by the Honourable Madam Justice Furlanetto and is cited as Ahmed v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FC 605.
The dispute originated from a series of acting appointments within the CRA's Audit Division. On September 16, 2021, Sean Foley was appointed acting manager of a team, with the appointment running retroactively from September 13, 2021 to March 11, 2022. The CRA subsequently extended this acting appointment three times: first from March 11, 2022 to July 12, 2022; then from July 12, 2022 to September 13, 2022; and finally from September 14, 2022 to September 30, 2022. Each time the appointment was extended beyond the six-month threshold, the CRA sent recourse notifications to employees of the Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch (LPRAB), including Mr. Ahmed, informing them of their right to pursue recourse through Individual Feedback followed by decision-review.

The Applicant's IF request and the recourse process
On November 4, 2022, following the third extension, Mr. Ahmed submitted a request for IF. His request asked for feedback on why he was not selected for the MG-05 position, sought complete records in the Hiring Manager's possession relevant to the staffing decision, and requested accommodation during the IF process. The Hiring Manager acknowledged the request on November 9, 2022 and connected Mr. Ahmed with an Accommodation Advisor. Recommended accommodations were finalized on December 14, 2022, and the Applicant did not raise any issues with them.
Over the ensuing months, the process was delayed due to the Hiring Manager's absence from the office and the ongoing accommodation request. On November 23, 2022, the Director General wrote the Applicant advising that it would not be possible to finalize his IF within the prescribed timeline, and indicated the CRA would resolve the IF within 30 days from the date the accommodation measures were determined and accepted. On December 19, 2022, the Hiring Manager further advised that the IF process could not be completed within 30 days of the determination of accommodation measures due to her upcoming leave, and indicated the CRA would endeavour to resolve the IF by February 27, 2023. On February 13, 2023, the Hiring Manager provided the Applicant with disclosure documents and simultaneously advised that the IF would be conducted in writing pursuant to section 5.9.4 of the Recourse Policy, citing concerns about past interactions and the inability to be accompanied by a third party during an in-person session. The Applicant objected to the written format and made additional requests on March 8, 2023, including further disclosure, a change in digital format for certain documents, additional time to articulate his concerns, and that the IF occur in person. The Hiring Manager responded on March 27, 2023, maintaining the written format but providing the Applicant until April 11, 2023 to identify his feelings of arbitrary treatment, warning that in the absence of any identified arbitrary treatment the IF could not proceed. The Applicant requested an extension until April 18, 2023; an extension was provided until April 21, 2023.

The ineligibility decision
On April 20, 2023, the Applicant sent further correspondence raising his disagreement with several issues, including that he be required to identify his concerns of arbitrary treatment before his proposed IF meeting. On May 8, 2023, the Hiring Manager advised the Applicant that his IF request had been deemed ineligible because no allegations of arbitrary treatment had been identified despite multiple opportunities to do so. The Hiring Manager noted that the initial IF request was submitted without identified allegations, that the employee was given the opportunity to identify or clarify concerns on multiple occasions, and that the response submitted on the deadline of April 21, 2023 did not contain any allegations of arbitrary treatment related to the staffing action in question.

Relevant policy framework and clauses at issue
The CRA operates under the Canada Revenue Agency Act, SC 1999, c 17, which at subsection 54(1) requires the Agency to develop a program governing staffing, including the appointment of, and recourse for, employees. Pursuant to this authority, the CRA developed the Policy on the Staffing Program, the Procedures for Staffing (Staffing Program), and the Procedures for Recourse on Staffing (Staffing Program) (the Recourse Policy). Version 2.0 of the Recourse Policy was the operative version, as the Appointee's initial acting appointment was made on September 16, 2021 — before September 30, 2022, when Version 3.0 took effect.
Under the Recourse Policy, recourse is intended "to address an employee's concerns of arbitrary treatment as a result of a staffing decision or voluntary assessment." "Arbitrary" is defined in the Recourse Policy as treatment done "in an unreasonable manner, done capriciously; not done or acting according to reason or judgment; not based on rationale or established policy; not the result of a reasoning applied to relevant considerations; discriminatory, that is, as listed as the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act." Sections 5.5.3 and 5.9.5 require that an employee seeking IF complete a mandatory "Individual Feedback – Request and Response" form that "identifies their concerns, outlining the reasons they feel they were treated arbitrarily." The form itself instructs that "requests must be sufficiently detailed to provide the manager or designate with an understanding of the issues of arbitrary treatment in order to respond in a meaningful way." Section 5.9.3 mandates that the manager responsible for the staffing decision must conduct the IF, and section 5.9.4 permits the IF to take place either verbally or in writing. Section 5.9.10 requires the manager to address the employee's concerns and reasons why they feel they were treated arbitrarily as identified on the form. Disclosure obligations are governed by section 5.6, and Informal Conflict Resolution (ICR) is a voluntary process under the Recourse Policy.

Preliminary evidentiary issues
The Court addressed several preliminary matters before turning to the merits. The Respondent sought to strike significant portions of the Applicant's affidavit on the basis that the material referenced information not before the decision-maker and related to other processes and decisions rather than the decision under review. Justice Furlanetto agreed that the majority of the impugned paragraphs and exhibits should be struck, retaining only those paragraphs that provided permissible background facts and documents that could fall within the limited exceptions recognized in Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 and Tsleil-Waututh Nation v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 128 for general background, procedural defect evidence, or evidence highlighting the complete absence of evidence before the decision-maker. The Court also struck Version 3.0 of the Recourse Policy (dated September 30, 2022) that the Applicant attached as Appendix A to his Memorandum of Fact and Law, confirming that Version 2.0 applied. Additionally, the Court rejected the Applicant's argument that the Respondent's failure to file its own evidence created a negative inference, noting that Rule 307 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 is permissive, not mandatory.

Analysis of procedural fairness
The Applicant raised five arguments on procedural fairness. The Court noted that decision-review had previously been recognized as falling in "the middle to lower end of the spectrum of procedural fairness" in NG v Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 1298, and that IF is a more informal process and a precursor to decision-review.
First, the Applicant alleged that the CRA breached its own procedures by failing to complete a "staffing action rationale" and by not notifying employees about their right to recourse within a certain timeframe. The Court found no mandatory requirement in the Staffing Policy, Staffing Procedures Policy, or Recourse Policy to maintain a staffing action rationale form for all appointments, noting that the document checklist the Applicant pointed to stated only that such a form "may be used." The Court also noted that the Recourse Policy did not provide a deadline for sending the recourse notification. In any event, the Hiring Manager did prepare a staffing action rationale prior to the Appointee's second acting extension, and the Applicant was notified and engaged the IF process.
Second, the Applicant argued that converting the IF to a written format was improper, contrary to his preference, inconsistent with the accommodations in place, and discriminatory under the protected grounds of disability. The Court held that the Recourse Policy expressly permits the IF to be conducted in writing, that the recommended accommodations did not restrict the IF from being conducted in writing, and that the Hiring Manager continued to respect the accommodation measures, including keeping the third party copied on all correspondence and respecting the timing outlined in the accommodations.
Third, the Applicant alleged bias, contending that the Director General was the actual decision-maker and that the Hiring Manager, as subordinate to the Director General, was in a conflict of interest. The Court found no evidence that the Director General was the decision-maker, noted the documentary evidence indicated the Hiring Manager was the person responsible for extending the Appointee's acting appointment, and confirmed the Recourse Policy expressly requires the manager responsible for the staffing decision to conduct the IF. The Court further noted that prior jurisprudence, specifically Anderson v Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2003 FCT 667, had previously considered and disregarded the argument that a hiring manager will have an "impermissibly closed mind" by virtue of their position.
Fourth, the Applicant challenged the sufficiency of disclosure. The Court found that the CRA followed the disclosure process outlined in section 5.6 of the Recourse Policy, provided disclosure on February 13 and 28, 2023 — including the staffing action rationale, email correspondence relating to the Appointee's appointment and extensions, the recourse notifications and recourse period, the Appointee's exception to the second language requirement, and translations of various emails from French to English — and reasonably declined requests for information outside the scope of the single staffing action under review.
Fifth, the Applicant argued that the CRA did not adhere to the recommended accommodation measures and violated the Recourse Policy by refusing to participate in ICR. The Court found no evidence that accommodations were breached, and noted that ICR is a voluntary process under the Recourse Policy with no requirement for participation. The Hiring Manager was of the view that ICR would not advance the IF process.

Reasonableness of the ineligibility decision
On the substantive reasonableness of the decision, the Court applied the standard from Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, which requires that a reasonable decision be "based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker." The Court emphasized that the Recourse Policy requires employees to identify their concerns and the reasons they feel they were treated arbitrarily, and that this requires more than just a general assertion. The Respondent conceded that the Applicant may not have been able to articulate his concerns at the time he initially filed the form; however, upon disclosure of the records relating to the staffing action, the Applicant had all relevant information before him. Despite receiving disclosure and being given additional time and multiple reminders, the Applicant did not particularize his concerns of arbitrary treatment. In this context, the Court found the decision to render the IF request ineligible was reasonable.

Ruling and outcome
The Federal Court dismissed Mr. Ahmed's application for judicial review in its entirety, finding that neither procedural unfairness nor unreasonableness had been established. The Court ruled in favour of the Respondent, the Attorney General of Canada. No costs were awarded, as the Respondent made no specific submissions on costs. No exact monetary amount was at issue or ordered in this proceeding, as the case concerned the judicial review of an internal staffing recourse decision rather than a monetary claim.