Background
The Canada Revenue Agency determined on June 16, 2022, that Li Sheng Yang was ineligible for the Canada Recovery Benefit, Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit, and Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit. Because Yang had elected to receive online correspondence, the eligibility letters were posted to his CRA MyAccount. Each letter stated that he could request a second review within 30 days.
CRA records showed that the letters were first accessed on July 14, 2022, but Yang did not request a second review until January 12, 2024, approximately 18 months late. He said he had difficulty reading letters onscreen and did not learn their contents until December 22, 2023. The CRA found that this did not reasonably explain the delay and declined to conduct a second review. Yang sought judicial review, alleging procedural unfairness and unreasonableness.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court dismissed the application. It held that notice occurred when the letters were delivered to Yang’s online account, not when he chose to open or read them. The Court analogized electronic delivery to physical mail in a sealed envelope: a legal deadline runs from the objective delivery date rather than the recipient’s decision to examine the correspondence.
The CRA’s process was procedurally fair because Yang knew that lateness was the issue, had an opportunity to explain the delay, and had his explanation considered. Its refusal to extend the statutory 30-day period was also reasonable because the request was 18 months late, the letters expressly disclosed the deadline, and Yang supplied no compelling circumstances justifying an extension. The Court amended the respondent’s name from the Canada Revenue Agency to the Attorney General of Canada and ordered Yang to pay $600 in costs by February 28, 2027.
Key Takeaways
- Delivery of a CRA decision to a taxpayer’s elected online account can trigger a statutory review deadline even if the taxpayer does not read the document promptly.
- Failing to check or read online correspondence, without meaningful particular circumstances explaining the delay, need not justify extending the 30-day review period.
- Procedural fairness was satisfied because the CRA identified the lateness issue, allowed Yang to explain it, and considered his explanation before refusing a second review.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that taxpayers who elect electronic CRA correspondence bear the practical consequences of that choice. Courts may treat posting to the designated online account as delivery and will not ordinarily postpone a statutory deadline until the recipient actually reads the notice.
It also confirms that the CRA has discretion to allow additional time for a benefits review, but a refusal may withstand judicial review when the agency considers the applicant’s explanation and rationally finds it insufficient.