Background
Jean-François Tremblay received Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) payments. In April 2024, the Canada Revenue Agency asked him to provide documents supporting his eligibility for CERB and the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB). After receiving no documents, the CRA determined in February 2025 that he had not established his eligibility for either benefit.
Tremblay said he received that decision on March 3, 2025, and prepared a response dated March 22 requesting reconsideration. The CRA’s evidence showed, however, that the response was mailed on April 22 and received on April 25. On April 15, 2026, the CRA advised him that his request for a second review of his CRB eligibility was late and would not be considered. He received that refusal on April 27 but did not file his written motion until July 30, 94 days later. Reading his self-represented motion as a whole, the Court treated it as seeking an extension of time to challenge the CRA’s refusal and an order requiring a second review.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court dismissed the motion without costs. An extension under subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act is discretionary and turns on whether the applicant has shown a continuing intention to pursue the proceeding, some merit to the proposed application, no prejudice from the delay, and a reasonable explanation for it. The overriding consideration is the interests of justice.
Tremblay satisfied none of the factors supporting an extension. He offered no evidence of concrete steps taken between receiving the refusal on April 27 and filing on July 30, and therefore did not establish a continuing intention to seek judicial review. His assertion that he qualified for CERB did not explain why the CRA’s refusal to conduct a second review was unreasonable. The record also attributed the earlier mailing delay to Tremblay or his accountant, rather than postal service delays. Finally, he gave no explanation for the 94-day delay in approaching the Court. Because neither side produced evidence of specific prejudice, that factor was neutral.
Key Takeaways
- An applicant seeking extra time for judicial review must provide evidence addressing the established extension factors; assertions alone are insufficient.
- Claiming substantive eligibility for a benefit does not establish that an administrative decision refusing a late reconsideration request is arguably unreasonable.
- The interests of justice include the public interest in the certainty, timely enforcement, and finality of administrative decisions.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that self-represented applicants must account for the entire period of delay and identify an arguable basis for judicial review. Courts may interpret an unclear filing holistically, but they cannot supply missing evidence or legal grounds.
For challenges involving pandemic benefits, the merits of the underlying eligibility claim and the reasonableness of refusing an untimely second review are distinct issues. Applicants must address the particular administrative decision they seek to challenge and comply with the Federal Courts Act’s short filing deadline.