Quashing a Judicial Review Application. Ash v. Chief Medical Officer of Health of Ontario
In Ash v. Chief Medical Officer of Health of Ontario (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court considered quashing a JR:
The Test for quashing an Application for Judicial Review. Canada (Attorney General) v. Iris Technologies Inc.
 The test on a motion to quash an Application for judicial review is whether it is “plain and obvious” or “beyond doubt” that the Application cannot succeed. This standard applies to issues of standing, jurisdiction, justiciability, or other defects on the face of the Application. The test is the same as on a Rule 21 motion to strike an action.
In Canada (Attorney General) v. Iris Technologies Inc. (Fed CA, 2022) the Federal Court of Appeal considered the test for quashing (striking) a judicial review application:
 An application for judicial review will be struck out when it is bereft of any possibility of success (Canada (National Revenue) v. JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc., 2013 FCA 250,  2 F.C.R. 557 at paras. 47 and 91 [JP Morgan]). In applying this standard, a court is to read the application holistically and realistically with a view to determining the real essence of the application (at para. 49).. Air Passenger Rights v. Canada (Transportation Agency)
In Air Passenger Rights v. Canada (Transportation Agency) (Fed CA, 2020) the Federal Court of Appeal set out the threshold for striking an application for judicial review:
 In Canada (National Revenue) v. JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc., 2013 FCA 250, (JP Morgan) this Court noted that the threshold for striking an application for judicial review is high:. Barclays Bank PLC v. Devonshire Trust
47 The Court will strike a notice of application for judicial review only where it is "so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success" [footnote omitted]: David Bull Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc., 1994 CanLII 3529 (FCA),  1 F.C. 588 (C.A.), at page 600. There must be a "show stopper" or a "knockout punch" — an obvious, fatal flaw striking at the root of this Court's power to entertain the application: Rahman v. Public Service Labour Relations Board, 2013 FCA 117, at paragraph 7; Donaldson v. Western Grain Storage By-Products, 2012 FCA 286, at paragraph 6; Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 959.
48 There are two justifications for such a high threshold. First, the Federal Courts' jurisdiction to strike a notice of application is founded not in the rules but in the Courts' plenary jurisdiction to restrain the misuse or abuse of courts' processes: David Bull, above, at page 600; Canada (National Revenue) v. RBC Life Insurance Company, 2013 FCA 50, 18 C.C.L.I. (5th) 263. Second, applications for judicial review must be brought quickly and must proceed "without delay" and "in a summary way": Federal Courts Act, above, subsection 18.1(2) and section 18.4. An unmeritorious motion — one that raises matters that should be advanced at the hearing on the merits — frustrates that objective.
In Barclays Bank PLC v. Devonshire Trust the Court of Appeal stated the test for quashing a judicial review application:
 The test on a motion such as this to quash an application for judicial review is the plain and obvious test. In Deeb v. IIROC,  O.J. No. 691, Pepall J. (as she then was) in quashing a motion for judicial review stated:
32 The test on a motion to quash is whether it is plain and obvious that the application cannot succeed: Adams v. Canada, 2011 ONSC 325 (CanLII). Is it beyond doubt that the application for judicial review will fail?