Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jing Jing He's 2022 Rivian R1T electric vehicle was seized by the CBSA for failing to declare its full value upon importation into Canada, contrary to section 7.1 of the Customs Act.

• Two successive motions for interlocutory injunctive relief were dismissed by the Federal Court, as Ms. He failed to satisfy the tripartite RJR-MacDonald test requiring a serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.

• Claims of irreparable battery damage were deemed speculative and unsupported by objective evidence, with the Court noting the harm was both avoidable and compensable monetarily.

• The CBSA activated "service mode" on the vehicle, blocking Ms. He's monitoring access through the Rivian App, citing security and privacy concerns at the Douglas Port of Entry.

• Ms. He's allegations of procedural unfairness and unreasonableness in the underlying Forfeiture and NEXUS Decisions were found insufficient, as she provided no detailed evidence of errors in the CBSA's decision-making.

• Costs of $500 were awarded against Ms. He in the second decision, with the Court urging her to collaborate with the CBSA rather than multiply interlocutory motions.

The seizure and underlying dispute

On March 3, 2025, Jing Jing He attempted to import her 2022 Rivian R1T electric vehicle into Canada through the Pacific Highway port of entry in British Columbia. The Canada Border Services Agency seized the vehicle after determining that Ms. He had failed to declare its full value upon importation, in contravention of section 7.1 of the Customs Act. Ms. He appealed the CBSA's enforcement action to the CBSA Recourse Directorate, and the vehicle remained in the agency's possession throughout the proceedings.

The CBSA's administrative decisions

On January 16, 2026, a delegate for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness issued three decisions. First, under section 131 of the Customs Act, the delegate confirmed that Ms. He had contravened section 7.1 by providing information that was not true, accurate, and complete regarding the vehicle's value. Second, under section 133, the delegate determined that the seized vehicle could be released upon payment of $9,558.55. Third, under subsection 11.1(2), the delegate upheld the cancellation of Ms. He's NEXUS program membership for a period of five years, allowing her to reapply on March 3, 2030. The CBSA concluded to a transactional value of $53,000 USD for the vehicle after a complete analysis, while Ms. He had provided a current assessed value of $52,000 USD from the Rivian dealership along with a certified collision repair estimate totalling $19,474.56 USD from an authorized Rivian collision centre that she argued should have reduced the valuation.

The first injunction motion before Justice Turley

On February 2, 2026, Ms. He filed her first motion for injunctive relief. She sought a mandatory injunction requiring the CBSA to charge her vehicle periodically and maintain records of all charging sessions, or alternatively, to provide her or a third party with supervised access to charge and maintain the vehicle's battery. She also sought a prohibitive injunction preventing the CBSA from selling, dismantling, or disposing of the vehicle, though she acknowledged that a prohibitive injunction was unnecessary and elected not to pursue this relief further after Respondent's counsel confirmed the CBSA would not take any such action while the underlying litigation is ongoing. Justice Turley applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test and found that Ms. He had failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case, as required for a mandatory injunction under R v Canadian Broadcasting Corp, 2018 SCC 5. Ms. He had simply asserted that the underlying judicial review raised arguable issues regarding the seizure's legality without providing evidence or detailed submissions about errors in the CBSA's decision. Regarding irreparable harm, the Court found that Ms. He's claims of potential battery damage were based on assumptions, speculation, and her own understanding rather than objective evidence. The Court further noted the harm was avoidable, as Ms. He could retrieve the vehicle by paying the fine of $9,558.55, which would be refunded if she ultimately succeeded on judicial review. The motion was dismissed on February 11, 2026, with no order of costs, and Justice Turley encouraged Ms. He to work with the CBSA to resolve the charging issue.

Developments between the two decisions

Following the first motion, the CBSA took steps to address the vehicle's battery situation. The vehicle was towed from the Pacific Highway port to the Douglas Port of Entry on February 12, 2026, to facilitate charging. On February 13, 2026, the CBSA activated "service mode" on the vehicle, which blocked Ms. He's ability to monitor it through the Rivian mobile application. After initial technical difficulties and the replacement of the vehicle's 12-volt battery at Ms. He's expense, the CBSA successfully began charging the vehicle on February 23, 2026, with the battery set to maintain a power level of 70% to ensure optimal battery health. The CBSA's Document and Exhibit Control Team conducted 31 checks between February 24 and April 1, 2026, confirming that the battery remained between 69% and 71%. Moisture absorbers were also placed into the cabin of the vehicle to reduce the risk of condensation build up that could result in mold.

The second injunction motion before Justice Gascon

On March 31, 2026, Ms. He filed a second motion seeking orders to prohibit the CBSA from maintaining the vehicle in "service mode," to prevent the CBSA from reactivating the service mode or otherwise blocking her monitoring access through the Rivian App, and alternatively, to require the CBSA to apply opaque tape or physical covers over the vehicle's exterior camera lenses. The CBSA opposed removing the service mode, citing security and privacy concerns: the vehicle's cameras could be utilized as a surveillance tool at the Douglas Port of Entry, one of the busiest land border crossings in Canada, potentially exposing sensitive information about port of entry operations, staffing levels and schedules, operational pressure points, inspection techniques, and enforcement activities. Justice Gascon distinguished between the prohibitory and mandatory elements of Ms. He's motion, applying the lower "neither frivolous nor vexatious" threshold for the prohibitory conclusions and the higher "strong prima facie case" threshold for the mandatory relief of covering the camera lenses.

The Court's analysis and ruling

On the serious issue prong, Justice Gascon found that Ms. He's challenges to the Forfeiture and NEXUS Decisions were frivolous and thus insufficient to meet even the low threshold of the first prong of the RJR-MacDonald test, as she provided no evidence or detailed submissions about specific errors. Her claim of procedural unfairness was recharacterized as going to the merits and reasonableness of the two impugned decisions rather than process, and the record showed she had been given ample opportunity to respond during the administrative proceedings. On irreparable harm, the Court found Ms. He's battery damage concerns speculative and unsupported, noting the CBSA was already maintaining the charge between 69% and 71%. Additionally, any battery damage would be quantifiable and compensable monetarily, and the harm was avoidable since she could pay the fine to retrieve the vehicle. Her argument that retrieving the vehicle would compromise the evidentiary record was rejected, as the reasonableness of the CBSA decisions would be determined on the basis of what was before the CBSA at the time of decision, not on any new assessments of damages on the vehicle. Having failed on both the serious issue and irreparable harm prongs, the balance of convenience was not considered. The motion was dismissed on April 21, 2026, with the Attorney General of Canada being the successful party. Costs in the all-inclusive, lump-sum amount of $500 were awarded to the Respondent, with the Court noting Ms. He's motion was unnecessary and doomed to fail, and that she had repeated some of the same arguments dismissed by Justice Turley two months earlier. Justice Gascon echoed Justice Turley's earlier invitation for Ms. He to work with the CBSA and counsel for the AGC in resolving the issues relating to the battery charging and the condition of the vehicle, instead of multiplying interlocutory injunction motions before the Court.