Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Chester Chong-Walden, a self-represented litigant, sought an extension of over 850 days to file for judicial review of CRA decisions denying his CERB and CRB eligibility.

• CRA determined the Applicant failed to meet the statutory $5,000 minimum income threshold required for COVID-19 emergency benefits during the relevant periods.

• No continuing intention to pursue judicial review was demonstrated for the period between August 30, 2023, and October 29, 2025, undermining the Applicant's motion.

• Lack of legal training and inability to afford counsel were deemed insufficient justifications for the extraordinary length of the delay.

• The CRA Officer's determination was found to be reasonable, as the Applicant admitted he had not received any actual income from his startup company.

• The motion was dismissed without costs, with the Court concluding it was not in the interests of justice to grant the extension.

The startup founder and the COVID-19 benefits dispute

Chester Chong-Walden served as Chief Executive Officer of a self-funded startup company aimed at bringing more environmentally beneficial building materials to market. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he applied for and received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) from March to September 2020, and the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) from September to December 2020. To qualify for these benefits, applicants were required to have earned at least $5,000 (before taxes) in employment and/or self-employment income during the relevant time periods. The Applicant contended that he had worked full-time for his company but was unable to pay himself due to being the co-owner of a self-funded clean technology startup.

CRA's review and the eligibility determination

The Canada Revenue Agency conducted a review of the Applicant's eligibility for these benefits. By letter dated January 27, 2023, the CRA sent a Contact Letter requesting documents to support his eligibility, and the Applicant provided a response on February 6, 2023. By letters dated February 16, 2023, the CRA notified him that he was ineligible because he had not earned at least $5,000 (before taxes) in employment and/or self-employment income during the relevant time periods. The Applicant requested a second review by letter dated March 7, 2023, and provided financial documents related to his company.

The second review and unanswered questions

During the second-level review, the CRA noted that clarification was required regarding the Applicant's income during the relevant time periods. The CRA Officer attempted to contact the Applicant by telephone on July 25, July 26, August 2, August 24, and August 25, 2023, to obtain clarification regarding his eligibility but was unable to reach him. A number of voicemail messages were left for the Applicant to return the CRA Officer's call, which the Applicant did not do. CRA database notes indicated that the Applicant's company had provided an accounting report from 2019 stating that there was a balance owing to the Applicant in the amount of $4,907.51 as at December 31, 2019, which the Applicant had stressed to the CRA Officer was close to the $5,000 income threshold. The notes also indicated that the Applicant had advised that the gross income for Centroplexus Projects, of which he is a 50% partner, was $1,555 in 2019, and that this would give him an income of over $5,000 for 2019. The CRA Officer had additional questions related to these asserted amounts, including whether the Applicant had any documents related to them and whether there were expenses to offset against the $1,555 in gross income. These questions remained unanswered. By letters dated August 30, 2023, the CRA confirmed that the Applicant was ineligible for the CERB and the CRB, and the letters also advised that he could apply for judicial review within thirty days.

The prolonged delay and the motion for extension of time

The Applicant did not act on the CRA's August 30, 2023, decisions for over two years. By his own admission in his affidavit, he did not fully understand the process required for further action or applying for a judicial review, and since the amounts owing did not have a stated payment due date on the documents, he made the decision to continue to work on building the startup and wait until such time that the repayment could possibly be addressed. It was not until October 29, 2025, when the CRA sent a notice of collection for the benefit overpayments, that the Applicant took steps toward seeking judicial review. He spoke with a Collections Contact Officer at CRA and stated that the Officer told him there was still an opportunity to apply for judicial review. He attended the Registry on December 12, 2025, and was advised that he first needed to file a motion for an extension of time. He then worked on preparing the motion over the following weeks and filed his motion on February 9, 2026 — over 850 days past the statutory deadline.

The Court's analysis of the extension of time factors

The Federal Court, presided over by the Honourable Madam Justice Aylen, assessed the motion against the established four-factor test for granting an extension of time: (i) a continuing intention to pursue the application; (ii) the application has some merit; (iii) no prejudice to the respondent arises from the delay; and (iv) a reasonable explanation for the delay exists. On the question of continuing intention, the Court found the Applicant's own evidence showed that, following receipt of the CRA's August 30, 2023, decision letters, he specifically did not have an intention to proceed with an application for judicial review and decided to wait. The Court found that it was only once the CRA sent the Collection Notices in 2025 that the Applicant formed an intention to pursue judicial review. As for the explanation for the delay, the Court held that the Applicant's lack of legal training and understanding of the judicial review process, as well as his inability to afford a lawyer, did not constitute a reasonable justification for over 850 days of delay. The Court noted the Applicant was clearly informed of the 30-day time limit for seeking judicial review yet deliberately chose not to pursue it within the required time frame. The Court accepted that it may have taken him some time to prepare the necessary documents after familiarizing himself with the Federal Courts Rules, but that delay only accounted for approximately 90 days. On potential merit, the Court found none: the $5,000 income threshold was established by statute, is non-discretionary, and must be applied by the CRA Officer. The CRA Officer was well aware of the Applicant's circumstances as a founder of a startup and took them into consideration, and the Applicant's failure to return the Officer's calls left questions about his income unanswered. Combined with the admission that the Applicant had not received any income from the company, the Court found no merit to any assertion that the CRA Officer's determination was unreasonable. The prejudice factor was found to favour neither party.

The ruling and outcome

Weighing all four factors and the overriding interests of justice, Madam Justice Aylen dismissed the Applicant's motion for an extension of time, finding it was not in the interests of justice to grant the extension. The Court noted that there was no potential merit to the application and that granting an extension would not be an efficient use of judicial resources. The Court emphasized that time limits exist in the public interest to bring finality to administrative decisions, and the exceptional delay of over 850 days militated heavily against this discretionary remedy. The motion was dismissed without costs, as the Respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, had not sought costs of the motion. No specific monetary amount was awarded or ordered in favour of either party in this procedural ruling; however, the practical effect is that the CRA's determination of ineligibility — and the associated obligation to repay the benefits received — stands.