Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant sought an extension of the statutory deadline to apply for judicial review of two CRA decisions.

• The CRA determined the applicant was ineligible for pandemic-related benefits: the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit (PCTCC) and the Canada Recovery Benefit (PCRE).

• The request for extension came nearly 1,000 days after the statutory 30-day limit expired.

• The court considered whether the applicant demonstrated continued intent to pursue judicial review.

• Procedural fairness was raised as an issue, but the record showed the CRA had reviewed the applicant’s documents.

• The delay was not reasonably justified, and the court found no compelling reason to override the prejudice caused to the respondent.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and factual context

The applicant, Henri Ouellet, a 76-year-old man, applied for pandemic-related government benefits offered by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). These included the Canada Recovery Benefit (PCRE) received between March and September 2020, and the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit (PCTCC) received between December 2021 and January 2022. In June 2022, the CRA concluded that the applicant was ineligible for both benefits. According to the applicant, no detailed explanation was provided for his ineligibility regarding the PCTCC.

Upon receiving this outcome, Ouellet requested a second review of both decisions. The CRA upheld its original determinations. The applicant received the final decisions around November 7, 2022. Despite being informed that judicial review must be sought within 30 days, he only filed a motion for an extension on August 15, 2025, over two years later.

The legal issue and arguments

The central legal issue was whether the Federal Court should grant an extension of the 30-day statutory deadline under section 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act to permit the applicant to bring judicial review applications. The court applied the standard four-part test established in Federal Court jurisprudence: (1) whether the applicant had a continuing intention to pursue the application; (2) whether the case had arguable merit; (3) whether the other party would suffer prejudice from the delay; and (4) whether a reasonable explanation existed for the delay.

The applicant claimed he believed he was eligible and continued to contest the CRA’s decision by contacting them and trying to provide additional documentation. He also cited financial hardship and difficulty securing legal representation as reasons for the delay. On procedural fairness, he argued that relevant documents were ignored and that he had not been informed of the reasons for his ineligibility.

The respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, argued that allowing the extension would undermine the finality of CRA decisions and cause administrative prejudice due to the length of the delay.

Court’s analysis and conclusion

The court acknowledged that the applicant believed in his eligibility and had made multiple attempts to persuade the CRA to reconsider its decision. However, those efforts were aimed at internal reconsideration—not judicial review. The court emphasized that being informed of the 30-day deadline and failing to act for nearly 1,000 days significantly undermined the argument for continuous intent.

While the applicant raised some potentially arguable issues regarding procedural fairness, the affidavit evidence submitted by the respondent contradicted his claim that relevant documents were not reviewed. The court noted that prejudice to the CRA increases with time and found that the long delay eroded the reliability of the applicant’s claims and contributed to administrative uncertainty.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the balance of factors did not support granting an extension. The request for a deadline extension was therefore denied.

No costs or damages awarded

The respondent did not request costs, and the court confirmed that none would be awarded.