Federal Court Dismisses Judicial Review of CRA's Refusal to Conduct Second Review

Date: 20260525 Docket: T-4171-25 Citation: 2026 FC 670 Ottawa, Ontario, May 25, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME], who is self-represented, seeks judicial review of a Canada Revenue Agency [[NAME]] decision dated September 26, 2025 [Decision] refusing his request for a second review of the [NAME]’s determination that he was ineligible for the Canada [NAME] [CERB] and the Canada [NAME] [CRB]. [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, the application for judicial review is dismissed. Background [ 3 ] The factual background to this matter is not in dispute. [NAME] applied for the CERB and received benefits from April 12, 2020, until September 26, 2020, comprising a total of six periods. Subsequently, he applied for the CRB and received benefits from September 27, 2020, to March 13, 2021, comprising a total of 12 periods. [ 4 ] By letter dated April 15, 2024, the [NAME] advised [NAME] that his account had been selected for a verification review of his eligibility to receive the CERB and CRB [Initiating Letter]. The letter informed him that, to support his eligibility, the [NAME] required him to submit his pay stubs, records of employment, a letter from his employer confirming the dates of any work stoppage or confirming the dates of reduced work hours because of COVID-19, bank statements showing his name, address, and payroll deposit to prove his eligibility. The documents were to be provided within 45 days of the date of the Initiating Letter and, if the Applicant did not reply or provide the requested documents by that date, then he may be required to repay the benefits already received. [ 5 ] By letter of November 12, 2024, the [NAME] advised [NAME] that it had not received a reply to its previous letter and, as a result, had determined that he was not eligible for the CERB and CRB benefits he had received [First Decision Letter]. The letter also states that if [NAME] did not agree with the decision, then he could request a second review within 30 days of the date of the First Decision Letter. Further, that a second review request must include the reason why he disagreed with the [NAME]’s decision, any relevant new documents, facts or correspondence and, his contact information. [ 6 ] On January 13, 2025, [NAME] submitted the following documents to the [NAME] in support of his request for a second review: a) pay stubs for the pay periods from: i. April 1, 2020 to April 15, 2020; ii. May 1, 2020 to May 15, 2020; iii. June 1, 2020 to June 15, 2020; iv. July 1, 2020 to July 15, 2020; v. August 1, 2020 to August 15, 2020; vi. September 1, 2020 to September 15, 2020; b) a letter dated September 3, 2020 from his previous employer terminating his employment; and c) a letter dated March 9, 2021 regarding an offer of employment from a [NAME]. [ 7 ] By letter dated September 26, 2025, the [NAME] refused [NAME]’s request for a second review. The reason for refusal was that his request and supporting documents were submitted after the 30-day deadline identified in the First Decision Letter. [ 8 ] While the Applicant’s Notice of Application was somewhat unclear as to the actual decision under review (the First Decision Letter or the refusal to conduct a second review), his affidavit and written submissions, and the written submissions of the Respondent, concern the September 26, 2025, refusal by the [NAME] to conduct a second review. When appearing before me, both parties confirmed their understanding that this is the decision under review. Issues and Standard of Review [ 9 ] This matter raises the following issues: Whether the [NAME]’s decision not to conduct a second review was reasonable? Whether there was a breach of procedural fairness? [ 10 ] The standard of review on the merits of the [NAME]’s decision is reasonableness. On judicial review the Court “asks whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision” ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at para 99). [ 11 ] The standard of review for issues of procedural fairness is correctness (see [NAME] v [NAME] , 2014 SCC 24 at para 79;  Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2020 FCA 196 at para 35). Functionally, this requires the Court’s analysis to focus on whether the procedure followed was fair, having regard to all the circumstances ( Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at para 54). Relevant Legislation [ 12 ] The Government of Canada introduced the CERB and CRB as part of a series of measures to mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic ( Canada [NAME] Act , SC 2020, c 5, s 8 [ CERB Act ]; Canada Recovery Benefits Act , SC 2020, c 12, s 2 [ CRB Act ]). Eligible Canadian residents had to apply in order to receive the benefits. The [NAME] administers the CERB and CRB on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Social Development [Minister]. [ 13 ] The CERB Act does not prescribe specific procedures by which the Minister is to validate, review or verify an applicant’s CERB eligibility. However, when applying for the [NAME], an applicant must provide the Minister with any information that the Minister may require in respect of the application ( CERB Act , s 5(3)). Further, the Minister may, for any purpose related to verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with the CERB Act , by notice served personally or by confirmed delivery service, require that any person provide any information or document within the reasonable time that is stated in the notice ( CERB Act , s 10). [ 14 ] With respect to the CRB, section 6 of the CRB Act states, when applying for the CRB, an applicant must provide the Minister with any information that the Minister may require in respect of the application. Subsection 26(1) states that the Minister may, for any purpose related to verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with the Act, by a notice served personally or by a confirmed delivery service, require that any person provide any information or document within the reasonable time that is stated in the notice. [ 15 ] Further, section 31 of the CRB Act states: Request for review 31 (1) A person who is the subject of a decision of the Minister made under this Act may make a request, in the form and manner established by the Minister, to the Minister for a review of that decision at any time within 30 days after the day on which they are notified of the decision or any further time that the Minister may allow. ….. Review (3) The Minister must review the decision if a request for its review is made under subsection (1). On completion of the review, the Minister must confirm, vary or rescind the decision. Notification (4) The Minister must notify the person who made the request of the Minister’s decision under subsection (3). [NAME] procedure document [ 16 ] The Certified Tribunal Record [CTR] contains a document described in the CTR index as a “Procedure document that instructs [NAME] on how to evaluate review requests.” What is found in the CTR appears to be an excerpt from a larger document, being a section titled “30-day delay.” This section states that [NAME] will verify the 30-day delay to determine if the file has to be processed as a second review or if a “no adjustment” letter has to be sent. It also describes how [NAME] are to determine the start and end of the 30 days and the situations in which exceptions can be made. It goes on to state that no second review is completed when a delay has expired and a reply is “received beyond the 30 day delay with no explanation or support to warrant a second review.” When appearing before me, counsel for the Respondent was unable to identify the name of the document from which the section appears to have been extracted and/or whether that document is a guideline, policy or instruction document. Decision Under Review [ 17 ] As indicated above, the basis for the [NAME]’s decision refusing to conduct the requested second review was that the Applicant’s request was received on January 13, 2025, which exceeded the 30-day deadline specified in the November 12, 2024, First Decision Letter. [ 18 ] When conducting a judicial review, in addition to the decision itself, the Court may also consider the [NAME]’s notes, similarly to the Global Case Management System notes utilized by immigration officers, which form part of the reasons for the decision ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 139 at para 22; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1571 at para 24 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 1731 at para 19; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 930 at para 24; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 762 at para 9). [ 19 ] In the present case, the CTR contains screen captures described in the CTR index as taken from the [NAME]’s T1Case case specific notes/reports relevant to the [NAME] for the Applicant. These include the following entry dated April 10, 2024: Post-Validation letter sent requesting documents to support CERB for periods 2-7, and CRD for periods 1-12. [ 20 ] This is followed by an entry dated November 1, 2024, stating: This case has been automatically completed as a no-reply [ 21 ] The next entry is dated September 9, 2025, and states: Following the review of the CERB and CRB on 2024-11-12, the [NAME] ([NAME]) second review request was received after the 30-day to request a recourse expired. [NAME] did not supply an explanation for why they were late in responding to the letter and they received their letters and responded electronically so the delay would not have been due to the postal strike. Consequently, no further action will be taken following the reception of this new review request, no-adjustment letter sent. [ 22 ] The CTR also contains screen captures described in the index as taken from the [NAME]’s T1Case agency wide notepad relevant to the [NAME] for the Applicant. These include the following entry dated March 25, 2025: VOCALLS CEBV - 0805 [NAME] OF HIS SECOND [NAME] WE HAVE HIS DOCUMENTS HERE, NOT YET ASSIGNED, NO TIMELINE, FIFO. [NAME] IF THE DOCUMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT. [NAME] IF THE DOCUMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT? ADVISED HIS REVIEW AGENT WILL LET HIM KNOW IF HE NEEDS TO SUBMIT MORE. [ 23 ] There is also an entry dated September 24, 2025, which states: Following the review of the CERB and CRB on 2024-11-12, the [NAME] ([NAME]) second review request was received after the 30-day to request a recourse expired. [NAME] did not supply an explanation for why they were late in responding to the letter and they received their letters and responded electronically so the delay would not have been due to the postal strike. Consequently, no further action will be taken following the reception of this new review request, no-adjustment letter sent. Reasonableness Applicant’s Position [ 24 ] The Applicant submits that he did not receive the Initiating Letter but acknowledges that he did receive the First Decision Letter. He submits that the decision to refuse a second review is unreasonable because the [NAME] determined that he was ineligible without reviewing his supporting documents. He states that he requested pay stubs and records related to his previous employer and gathered that information as it relates to his [NAME]. This took longer than expected as the information requested was from many years before. Because of this, he was not able to meet the 30-day deadline. However, he submitted his documents as soon as possible. He also argues that if his documents had been reviewed, then the [NAME] would have clearly concluded that he was eligible for the CERB and CRB. Respondent’s Position [ 25 ] The Respondent argues that the First Decision Letter put the Applicant on notice of the time limit within which the [NAME] required him to request a second review of its eligibility finding. However, his request was filed late, and he did not provide an explanation for the delay. Further, that the explanation now provided by the Applicant in his affidavit filed in support of his application for judicial review was not before the [NAME] agent when the decision was made. The Respondent submits that the decision is reasonable and transparent because the [NAME] explained its reasons for denying the request for a second review in the Decision. Further, that the Decision was justified in relation to the scope of discretion and the constraints that bore upon the [NAME] in administering the CERB and the CRB (citing He v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 1875 [ He ] at para 21). Analysis [ 26 ] The [NAME] procedure document extract contained in the CTR sets out situations in which exceptions can be made to the 30-day timeline to request a second review: Although exceptions may be made for replies received beyond the 30 day delay. If the late reply is received after 30 days from the date on the denial letter, [NAME] will look at the submitted correspondence and evaluate if the request has an explanation for being late. The agent may determine (from the correspondence, all notes and other sources) that the [NAME] has a valid explanation for being late such as; the [NAME] lives in an area where there has been a recent tragic event (e.g. wildfire); postal labour dispute; the correspondence was delivered to another office; the [NAME] was sick. Documents are received late but the [NAME] has shown continuous attempts to have the case resolved (look into notepads and work item notes). Note: [NAME] are not looking at the eligibility at this stage they are deciding if they will proceed with a second review. The [NAME] are required to use their discretion and judgment in determining if the explanation is sufficient to perform a second review. If the agent determines a second review is warranted they will follow second review procedures and complete the review. [ 27 ] Here, the Applicant did not provide the [NAME] with any reasons for failing to meet the 30-day timeline set out in the First Decision Letter. The Applicant similarly did not request an extension of the time within which to submit his second review request. The Applicant explained in his written submissions to this Court that gathering the required documentation took longer than expected because it was from many years prior. Regrettably, however, this explanation was not provided to the [NAME] when it made the Decision. The Applicant points out that he did follow up with the [NAME] about the sufficiency of his documents but that the [NAME] did not advise him that the lateness of his submission was a concern or that he had failed to provide a necessary explanation for why his submission was late. [ 28 ] While it is very possible that the [NAME] would have granted an extension or accepted the late submissions had the Applicant provided such reasons, particularly in light of the relatively short delay of 32 days, the fact remains that he did not do so. And, as the Respondent submits, the Applicant was advised of the deadline and was aware that he had missed it. While it is true that the First Decision Letter does not state that an explanation would be needed if a request for a second review was submitted after the deadline, the expectation of the letter is that there would be compliance with the deadline. In my view, if there was not, then the onus was on the Applicant to justify the late submission. [ 29 ] The Applicant has not established that the 30-day deadline set out in the above [NAME] procedure document and in subsection 31(1) of the CRB Act is unreasonable or, in these circumstances, that the [NAME] unreasonably exercised its discretion in declining to conduct a second review because the Applicant failed to comply with the 30-day deadline ( He at para 21; [NAME] v Canada (Revenue Agency) , 2025 FC 1446 at paras 1, 55-56. See also [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2026 FC 427 [ [NAME] ] at para 27). With respect to the Applicant’s submission that the Decision is unreasonable because the [NAME] did not consider or ignored his documents, this cannot succeed. The Decision under review is the decision not to conduct a second review because the request to do so was made after the 30-day deadline. Therefore, as no review was held, it was not an error to fail to consider the documents filed in support of the requested review. Procedural Fairness Applicant’s Position [ 30 ] The Applicant submits that the [NAME] breached his right to procedural fairness by only giving him 30 days to submit the requested documents. This was an inadequate amount of time to gather documentation from four years ago. When appearing before me, the Applicant also submitted that the [NAME] had not advised him, and he was not aware, of the need to provide an explanation as to why his request for a second review was late. Had he been advised of this when he called the [NAME] to ask about the status of his request, or otherwise, then he would have provided his explanation. Further, that his call to the [NAME] asking about the sufficiency of his late submitted documents should have been considered as demonstrating “continuous attempts to have the case resolved” under the instructions to [NAME]. Respondent’s Position [ 31 ] The Respondent submits that under the CERB Act and the CRB Act , the procedural fairness obligations of [NAME] are at the low end of the spectrum (citing [NAME] at para 17). Further, that the Decision was arrived at in a procedurally fair manner. In that regard, although the Applicant failed to respond to the Initiating Letter, he was afforded another opportunity to demonstrate his eligibility by way of the First Decision Letter which advised him that he could request a second review. Despite the 30-day deadline being clearly stated in the First Decision Letter, the Applicant submitted his request for a second review after that deadline had passed and without providing an explanation for why he could not meet the deadline. Nor did he contact the [NAME] to request an extension of time. The Respondent submits that there was no way for the [NAME] to determine, either from correspondence, notes on file, or other sources that the Applicant had a valid explanation for his late submission of his second review request. In that regard, in his phone call to the [NAME], the Applicant asked about the sufficiency of his submitted documents but did not ask about the lateness of his request for a second review. Analysis [ 32 ] Although the Applicant raises the sufficiency of the 30-day deadline as a question of procedural fairness, to my mind this is a question of reasonableness which I have addressed above. [ 33 ] Further, and as the Respondent submits, this Court has held that for CERB and CRB applications, the level of procedural fairness owed to an applicant is on the low end of the spectrum ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 421 at para 37; [NAME] at para 31). In such matters, procedural fairness requires that the Applicant receive notice of the case to meet and an opportunity to respond ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2026 FC 131 at para 24; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FCA 97 at para 7). [ 34 ] Here, the Applicant received the First Decision Letter which advised him that the [NAME] had found him not eligible for the benefits received and that he could request a second review within 30 days. Further, that such a request must include the reasons why he disagreed with the [NAME]’s decision; any relevant new documents, facts or correspondence; and contact information. This allowed the Applicant to know the case to be met and afforded him an opportunity to respond. [ 35 ] I appreciate that the Applicant was not aware that, in considering whether to process a late request for a second review, the [NAME] would look to any explanation provided by him for the late submission. However, while the [NAME] certainly could have advised the Applicant of the need for an explanation when assessing whether to conduct a late submitted request – including when he called to inquire about the sufficiency of his late submitted documents or when a [NAME] agent was finally assigned with respect to his request – it was not obliged to do so. [ 36 ] Accordingly, there was no breach of procedural fairness. Conclusion [ 37 ] I acknowledge and agree with the Applicant’s submission that being required to repay the benefits, when he believes that he has provided documents that would establish that he was entitled to those benefits, is a harsh financial penalty and economic hardship to be imposed simply for providing the documents to the [NAME] only 32 days after the deadline and, in that regard, appears to go against the spirit and purpose of the benefits. However, and despite [NAME]’s well prepared and well-argued submissions, given that the [NAME]’s Decision was reasonable and was exercised in a procedurally fair manner, the Court is unable to provide him with the remedy that he seeks. Costs [ 38 ] Although the Respondent requests costs and was the successful party, under the circumstances, I am exercising my discretion and declining to award costs ( [NAME] v Canada (Revenue Agency) , 2023 FC 41   para 97; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FC 44; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 1183 at para 32; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FC 1840 at para 25; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1534 at para 43; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 785 at para 61).

JUDGMENT in T-4171-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no order for costs. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-4171-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: MAY 20, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: MAY 25, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The APPLICANT (ON THEIR OWN BEHALF) [NAME] For The RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Halifax, Nova Scotia For The RESPONDENT