Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Motion sought an extension of time to apply for judicial review of a Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) decision.

• Applicant failed to provide supporting documents to demonstrate the merit of her proposed application.

• Explanations for the delay in filing were vague and lacked corroborating evidence.

• The court applied the established four-factor test for extensions of time but found the applicant did not meet the requirements.

• Discretionary relief was denied as the interests of justice did not support granting an extension.

• No costs were awarded to either party.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties

Nancy Dorthy Eckert, the applicant, filed a motion seeking an extension of time to commence an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) regarding her eligibility for the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB). The decision in question was rendered on April 8, 2025. The Attorney General of Canada was named as the respondent and was represented by Chelsea Barkhouse of Justice Canada, Halifax, Nova Scotia. The applicant represented herself.

Procedural history and legal framework

The applicant’s motion was brought under section 369 of the Federal Court Rules and subsection 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. The respondent did not oppose the extension outright but requested that, if granted, the applicant be required to file her notice of application within 14 days rather than the 30 days she requested.

Key legal issues and analysis

The court considered whether the applicant met the four-factor test for an extension of time: (a) a continuing intention to pursue the application, (b) some merit to the application, (c) no prejudice to the respondent from the delay, and (d) a reasonable explanation for the delay. The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the merit of her application, as no supporting documents were filed. Additionally, her explanation for the delay, which extended approximately four months beyond the limitation period, was deemed vague and unsubstantiated.

Decision and outcome

After weighing the relevant factors and the interests of justice, the court concluded that the applicant did not meet the burden required for an extension of time. The motion was dismissed. No costs were awarded to either party, and the Attorney General of Canada prevailed in the matter.