In Dahl v. Revenue Canada
 (December 4, 2013) the taxpayer applied for production of internal CRA documents but the Crown successfully moved to strike his application before the Prothonotary on the basis that these was no reviewable “decision” and, in any event, his application was several years late. His appeal to a judge of the court was equally unsuccessful:
 The respondent moved to strike the application on the basis that Mr Dahl had not identified a decision that could be judicially reviewed. Even if he had, judicial review was unavailable under the Federal Courts Act and, further, was out of time. The events about which Mr Dahl was most concerned took place in 2009 or earlier.
 Mr Dahl appealed Prothonotary Lafrenière’s decision and I heard his submissions and those of the respondent at a hearing on December 2, 2013. Mr Dahl passionately expressed his grievances about his treatment by the CRA. I do not have enough evidence before me that would allow me to conclude whether those grievances are well-founded and I do not need to decide whether they are. Still, I do not doubt the sincerity of Mr Dahl’s concerns.
 However, as I explained to Mr Dahl, my role is limited to determining whether Prothonotary Lafrienière erred by striking his application for judicial review. Mr Dahl did not provide any grounds on which I could overturn Prothonotary Lafrenière’s decision. While he disputed the Prothonotary’s finding that he had been duly served with the respondent’s motion materials, he did not provide any proof to the contrary, either by affidavit or documentary evidence. Nor did he contest any other of the Prothonotary’s findings.
 2013 FC 1212.