Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant sought an extension of time—963 days late—to apply for judicial review of CRA decisions denying COVID-19 benefits.

• CRA determined the applicant failed to meet the $5,000 net self-employment income threshold required for benefit eligibility.

• Evidence submitted, including an amended 2019 tax return, was not before the CRA at the time of its decisions and was thus inadmissible on judicial review.

• The court found no continuing intent to pursue the application within the required timeframe.

• No potential merit existed in the proposed judicial review, particularly due to the legislative requirement that eligibility be based on net—not gross—income.

• Motion was dismissed without costs, as judicial efficiency and finality weighed heavily against granting an extension.

Facts and outcome of the case

Michael Weterings, a self-employed musician, applied for COVID-19 benefits under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB), and the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit (CWLB). He initially received these benefits but was later deemed ineligible by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) after a review concluded that he had not earned at least $5,000 in net self-employment income during the relevant periods. Though his gross income exceeded this threshold, deductions for expenses lowered his net income below the limit.

In response, Weterings requested a second review and was again denied based on the same eligibility criteria. Despite being informed by the CRA on August 12, 2022, that he had 30 days to seek judicial review, he took no legal action until nearly three years later. He eventually filed a motion on May 2, 2025, asking for an extension of time to initiate a judicial review.

The applicant argued that his amended 2019 income tax return—filed after CRA’s decisions—showed he met the income requirement. He also cited medical conditions and systemic ambiguity as reasons for his delay. However, the court found these justifications unconvincing. His amended return was considered inadmissible as it was not part of the original record reviewed by the CRA. The court held that new evidence cannot be used on judicial review unless it falls under specific exceptions, none of which applied here.

Moreover, the applicant failed to demonstrate a continuing intention to pursue judicial review, and the court emphasized the importance of respecting statutory time limits to ensure finality and efficiency in administrative decision-making. The judge noted that while self-represented litigants may face difficulties, they are still expected to comply with procedural rules. Because there was no potential merit in the underlying claim and an extraordinary delay of 963 days, the court found that granting an extension was not in the interests of justice.

Ultimately, the Federal Court dismissed the motion without awarding costs. The judgment reinforced that eligibility for CRB and CWLB benefits must be based on net, not gross, self-employment income, and that attempts to retroactively qualify through tax amendments do not alter the CRA’s original, reasonable decisions.