Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Avneet Pal Singh Chawla sought an extension of time to file a judicial review of the CRA's second review decision finding him ineligible for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, the Canada Recovery Benefit, and the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit.

• The Court applied the four-factor test from Larkman and Hennelly to assess whether granting the extension served the interests of justice.

• No continuing intention to pursue judicial review was established after December 1, 2025, as the Applicant instead sought alternative intervention through his Member of Parliament.

• Potential merit of the proposed application could not be assessed because the Applicant failed to provide a draft application or sufficient supporting evidence beyond bare affidavit assertions.

• Prejudice to the Respondent was found, as the lack of a reasonable explanation for not complying with the time limit undermined the opposing party's entitlement to finality of administrative decisions.

• An unexplained gap of over two months — from December 1, 2025, to February 11, 2026 — left the delay without justification for the entire period in question.

Background and the CRA's decision

Avneet Pal Singh Chawla received COVID-19 pandemic benefits from the Government of Canada, specifically the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, the Canada Recovery Benefit, and the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit. Following a second review, the Canada Revenue Agency determined that Chawla was ineligible for all three benefits and communicated this finding in a single letter dated October 24, 2025. As a consequence of the ineligibility determination, Chawla was required to repay the amounts he received under these benefits to the CRA.

The filing delay and the Applicant's explanation

Under section 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act, an application for judicial review must be commenced within 30 days from the issuance of the decision, which in the Applicant's case was October 24, 2025. The CRA delivered the decision through its MyAccount online service. Chawla explained that he was in India at the time the decision was sent to his MyAccount and was unable to access it. He returned to Canada on November 28, 2025, and accessed the decision on December 1, 2025. He called the CRA twice on December 1, 2025, to enquire about the decision. CRA agents informed him that if he was not satisfied with the decision, the next steps were to apply for judicial review before the Federal Court. On December 1 and 2, 2025, the Applicant also contacted his Member of Parliament, and the office advised him that court proceedings were required. Despite this advice, the Applicant did not serve his motion on the Respondent until February 11, 2026, and filed the motion with the Court on February 12, 2026.

The four-factor test for extension of time

The Honourable Madam Justice Ngo assessed Chawla's motion under the well-established four-factor framework set out in Canada (Attorney General) v Larkman and Canada (AG) v Hennelly. These factors require the applicant to demonstrate: (i) whether the applicant had a continuing intention to pursue the application; (ii) whether there is some potential merit to the application; (iii) whether the respondent has been prejudiced from the delay; and (iv) whether the applicant has a reasonable explanation for the delay. Not all of the four factors need to be resolved in the moving party's favour, and the importance of each depends on the circumstances of the case.

Continuing intention to pursue judicial review

The Court acknowledged that Chawla demonstrated a continuing intent for some of the period of time, including contacting the CRA and his Member of Parliament. However, after December 1, 2025, the choice to seek alternative intervention through his Member of Parliament did not reflect a continuing intention to file an application for judicial review. There was no other evidence or information explaining the steps that the Applicant sought to take to start an application for judicial review. The Court found the first factor was not met.

Potential merit of the application

Justice Ngo noted that an applicant need not establish that their application will necessarily succeed, only that it has some potential merit. Chawla stated in his motion record that he had "an arguable case on the merits, as he was fully eligible for the COVID-19 benefits received and provided CRA with all requested supporting documentation" and he "believes that the CRA failed to properly consider the evidence submitted." However, he did not provide a draft or proposed application for judicial review with his motion, and there was no other information to identify how the decision was unreasonable or procedurally unfair. The Court noted that written statements in affidavits without any further evidence are insufficient to demonstrate potential merit, citing Sharma and Abikan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration). The second factor was not met.

Prejudice to the Respondent

While Chawla submitted that there was no prejudice to the Respondent if the Court were to allow an extension of time, the Respondent argued that an opposing party is entitled to expect an extension of time will not be granted when there is a lack of a reasonable explanation for not complying with the time limit, amounting to prejudice. The Court agreed with the Respondent's submissions. Justice Ngo emphasized that undertaking judicial review of administrative tribunal decisions within the relatively short time limits prescribed by the Federal Courts Act reflects the public interest with respect to the finality of administrative decisions, citing Clinique Gascon Inc. v Canada, Canada v Berhad, and Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v Hogervorst. The third factor was not met.

Reasonable explanation for the delay

Chawla's explanation for the initial delay in accessing the October 24, 2025, decision — being outside the country and unable to access his MyAccount — accounted for the period up to November 28, 2025. However, the Court stressed that an applicant's justification for a delay must be justified for the entire period in question, and that unexplained periods of delay, even short ones, may justify the refusal of an extension of time. There was no explanation to justify the delay between December 1, 2025, and February 11, 2026, and the Applicant's motion record was silent in this regard. The fourth factor was not met.

Ruling and outcome

Having found that none of the four factors were established, Justice Ngo concluded that, in the absence of any evidence provided to establish the factors, it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time. While the interests of justice remain the paramount consideration, the Court noted they do not exist in a vacuum and do not absolve applicants from their duty to satisfy their burden of proof. The Court ordered that the motion seeking an extension of time was dismissed, without costs. The successful party in this matter was the Attorney General of Canada (the Respondent), as the Applicant's motion was dismissed. No specific monetary amount was determined in this procedural ruling, though the underlying CRA decision had required the Applicant to repay the amounts he received under the benefits.