Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Applicant sought extra time to file for judicial review of a Canada Revenue Agency decision.

• Dispute centered on eligibility for COVID-19 benefits (CERB and CRB).

• Court considered the four-part Hennelly test for extensions of time.

• Applicant alleged CRA agents misled him, but evidence in CRA notes contradicted this claim.

• Respondent argued weak intention, inadequate explanation, and lack of merit in review application.

• Court found no basis to grant an extension and dismissed the motion without costs.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background of the dispute

The case arose when Colton Barbaro challenged a decision of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that found him ineligible for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB). The CRA communicated this decision in a letter dated March 17, 2025. Under the law, he had 30 days—until April 16, 2025—to seek judicial review in the Federal Court. Instead, he filed a motion on July 4, 2025, asking for an extension of time to commence a judicial review.

Positions of the parties

The applicant claimed he misunderstood advice from CRA agents and therefore missed the deadline. He argued that he met the requirements for an extension under the four-part test established in prior case law, which assesses intention to litigate, reasonableness of delay, merits of the case, and prejudice to the other side. He further asserted that he was eligible for the benefits in question.

The Attorney General of Canada, representing the CRA, opposed the motion. Counsel emphasized that the applicant showed only a weak intention to pursue review, had not reasonably explained the delay, and raised no identifiable errors in the CRA decision. Evidence presented by the CRA included internal notes documenting the applicant’s contacts, which indicated he knew about judicial review but wanted to avoid it.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the Hennelly test to the facts. It found the applicant’s explanation of relying on misinformation was not supported by the CRA’s case notes. The court also noted that new evidence cannot generally be introduced in judicial review, and that the applicant had not identified a specific error in the CRA’s decision. Simply asserting eligibility was insufficient to justify review.

Final outcome

After reviewing the affidavits and arguments, the court concluded that the applicant failed to satisfy the test for an extension of time. The motion was dismissed. No order as to costs was made, meaning each party bore their own expenses. The result left the CRA’s decision denying the benefits in place, with the Attorney General of Canada prevailing in the proceedings.