http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/71720/index.do 
ColasCanada Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue) (May 12, 2014 – 2014 FC 452) was an motion by the Crown to strike a judicial review application brought by the taxpayer. The taxpayer’s application in substance sought to prohibit the Minister from acting on proposed reassessments which that taxpayer alleged were made for an improper purpose:
[13] The actual paragraphs in the notice of application that essentially support the above factual background and that the Court is particularly mindful of read as follows:
1. This is an Application for judicial review and an appropriate Order or Orders in respect of the decision of the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) and the Canada Revenue Agency (collectively with the Minister, the “CRA”), to proceed with the issuance of certain notices of reassessment, which decision was communicated to the Applicant during a meeting held on July 12, 2013 (the “Decision”), drafts of which were provided to the Applicant in a letter dated July 12, 2013. The draft assessments were proposed to be issued under the I
ncome Tax Act (Canada) (the “
ITA”) to ColasCanada Inc. (“ColasCanada”) in respect of its 2005 to 2007 taxation years (the “Draft Assessments”).
. . .
3. The grounds for the Application are:
Introduction
(a) This Notice of Application relates to the abusive exercise by the CRA of its assessing powers in connection with an audit of ColasCanada, in the course of which (i) relevant information provided to the CRA by the Applicant in support of its position has been deliberately ignored by the CRA and (ii) the CRA has proposed various arbitrary grounds of reassessment of the Applicant and its affiliates;
(b) As will be demonstrated in the next paragraphs, (i) it would have been impossible to reach the Decision in good faith had the information provided to the CRA as part of the audit been properly and impartially reviewed and taken into account in the decisional process and (ii) the CRA’s approach to the audit of ColasCanada has been to seek to maximize the amount of the reassessment even in the absence of legal grounds;
. . .
The CRA’s Decision to Reissue Identical Draft Assessments
(aa) on July 12, 2013, in the course of a meeting with representatives of the Applicant scheduled at the request of the CRA, the CRA communicated the Decision (and its intention to proceed with the issuance of assessments in accordance with the Decision) through the issuance of updated Draft Assessments dated July 12, 2013 to ColasCanada, maintaining its position that (i) no deduction is available to ColasCanada in respect of the Technical Assistance Fees (per the CRA’s previously asserted stance), and (ii) ColasCanada should be assessed Part XIII tax on payments made to Colas S.A., and further determining that (iii) ColasCanada should be liable for transfer pricing penalties pursuant to subsection 247(3) of the ITA, irrespective of the fact that ColasCanada provided the CRA with the required contemporaneous documentation within the prescribed period.
[14] Given this context, ColasCanada is primarily seeking the following remedies in its notice of application:
2. The Applicant makes application for:
(a) an Order that the Decision, together with any subsequent and consequent actions taken in furtherance of the Decision, constitute an invalid and unlawful abuse and exercise of a statutory power under subsection 152(4) (unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the ITA), which was exercised for an improper purpose, such that the Applicant is entitled to an order setting aside the Draft Assessments and protecting it from the Decision materializing into actual assessments;
(b) an Order in the nature of Prohibition that no action or proceeding be taken to collect any taxes and interest which might be assessed in consequence of proceeding as contemplated in the Decision regarding the Draft Assessments;
(c) in the alternative, an Order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Decision;
The court reviewed the principles set out in JP Morgan and concluded that the Crown’s motion should succeed:
[38] To round out these ideas, it is appropriate to cite the statements in paragraphs 100 and 101 of the same decision:
[100] Therefore, for taxpayers and their counsel, the question is not whether their clients’ rights can be fully vindicated. They can. The question is how to do it consistent with proper practices and procedures, when to do it, in what forum, and by what means.
[101] For some, judicial review in the Federal Court is a preferred tool of first resort. They are wrong. It is a tool of last resort, available only when a cognizable administrative law claim exists, all other routes of redress now or later are foreclosed, ineffective or inadequate, and the Federal Court has the power to grant the relief sought.
[39] Consequently, the respondent’s motion to strike the notice of application will be allowed in the order, with costs.
[40] Moreover, the respondent filed, on January 13, 2014, a motion to strike directed, that time, against the affidavit of Jean-Yves Llenas dated December 23, 2013 (affidavit of Llenas).
[41] Given that at the hearing of the motion, ColasCanada indicated that it consented in general to the motion, that motion will be allowed, without costs.