Federal Court Rejects Late Second Review Request for CRB Eligibility

Date: 20260604 Docket: T-2734-24 Citation: 2026 FC 736 Ottawa, Ontario, June 4, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Conroy BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME], who represents himself in this matter, seeks judicial review of a Canada Revenue Agency [[NAME]] decision that found he was not eligible for the Canada [NAME] [CRB]. [ 2 ] On March 9, 2022, the [NAME] advised Mr. [NAME] that he was not eligible for the CRB because he did not earn at least $5,000 of employment or net self-employment income in 2019, 2020, or in the 12 months before the date of his first CRB application [First Review Decision]. [ 3 ] More than 21 months after receiving the First Review Decision, [NAME] requested a second review. The [NAME] denied his request for a second review because it was received after the 30-day deadline to request a second review [Second Review Decision]. [ 4 ] For the reasons that follow the judicial review is dismissed.

I.

BACKGROUND A. Material Facts and Events Leading to this Application [ 5 ] In 2020, as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Government created COVID-19 [NAME] programs including CRB. To be eligible for CRB applicants had to have earned at least $5,000 in gross employment income or net self-employment income in 2019, 2020, or 12 months before the date of their first CRB application. [ 6 ] On his 2019 income tax return, [NAME] reported a net self-employment commission income of $1,081.45. On his 2020 income tax return, he reported a net self-employment income of $4,579 and a net commission income of $801. [ 7 ] On December 17, 2020, [NAME] called the [NAME] to inquire if he met the income eligibility for the Canada [NAME]. He was advised that based on his 2019 tax return it did not appear that he was eligible. Despite this, the Applicant continued to apply for CRB. [ 8 ] On January 21, 2022, the [NAME] called the Applicant and advised him that proof of income prior to September 2020 would be required. The Applicant stated this evidence would be uploaded. The Applicant did not do so by March 7, 2022 (i.e. 45 days later). [ 9 ] On March 9, 2022, the [NAME] found the Applicant ineligible for the CRB because he did not earn at least $5,000 (before taxes) of employment or net self-employment income in 2019, 2020, or in the 12 months before the date of his first application [First Review Decision]. The record indicates that in making this determination, the [NAME] considered the net self-employment income reported on his 2019 and 2020 tax returns. [ 10 ] The March 9, 2022, letter communicating the First Review Decision provided instructions on how to commence a second review. It stated: If you do not agree with this decision, you may request a second review within 30 days of the date of this letter. The second review will be completed by an officer who was not involved in the first review and decision. Your request must include the following: - the reason why you disagree with the Canada Revenue Agency’s decision; for example not all information was considered or certain facts or details were missing, misinterpreted, or not considered in their proper context; - any relevant new documents, new facts, or correspondence; and - general contact information, your current home address, and current phone number. You can send your request through My Account, by fax to 1-[PHONE], or by mail to: Sudbury Tax Centre [address details provided] [ 11 ] In August 2022, the [NAME] sent [NAME] a notice that his covid benefits had been redetermined explaining that upon review it was found that he was not eligible for CRB and other covid benefits he received. This notice showed he owed a total of $26,000 of which $24,000 were CRB payments previously allowed. [ 12 ] In September 2022, [NAME] had at least four phone calls with the [NAME]: On the first call on September 6, 2022, the [NAME] advised him that he needed to pay back his covid benefits. [NAME] said he never received the First Review Decision because he was away helping sick family members. The [NAME] provided him with the reference number from the First Review Decision letter so he could determine if he could still send in documents for a second review as it was past 30 days since the First Review Decision. On the second call, also on September 6, [NAME] said he was unable to pay back the benefits. The [NAME] again advised him he could seek a second review and that he should provide new updated information to back up his eligibility. Again, [NAME] advised that he had not received the First Review Decision. The [NAME] confirmed his mailing address and told him who to contact to have the letter reissued. On September 12, the [NAME] again provided a reference number to [NAME] for the First Review Decision. [ 13 ] About a year later, the Applicant spoke with the [NAME] four times between September and December 2023. In three of these phone calls, he was told how to request a second review (i.e. by uploading documents online using the reference number from the First Review Decision letter which was provided to him again over the phone on October 13, 2023). [ 14 ] On December 29, 2023, [NAME] requested a second review. His submissions consisted of two pages of his 2020 income tax return with a handwritten annotation. He did not provide any explanation for his delay in asking for a second review. [ 15 ] On September 19, 2024, the [NAME] denied the Applicant’s request for a second review because it was received after the statutory 30-day deadline in s. 31(1) of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act , SC 2020, c 12, s 2 [CRBA]. The [NAME] notes state as follows: Following the review of the CRB and CRCB on Mar 9, 2022, the [NAME] ([NAME]) second review request was received after the 30-day to request a recourse expired. [NAME] responded over 1.5 years later on Dec 29, 2023. [NAME] has only sent in documents; there is no explanation at all for their delayed response. Contents of calls on public notepad do not display intent to resolve issue. Consequently, no further action taken, a No adjustment letter will be sent. [ 16 ] On September 26, 2024, the Applicant called the [NAME] and stated that he did submit a second review request within 30 days of the March 9, 2022 letter, but as it was years ago, he no longer has any records of when or where it was sent.

II. ISSUES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW [ 17 ] In his Notice of Application, the Applicant asserts that he qualified for CRB based on his income and tax returns and identifies the Second Review Decision from September 2024 as the decision under review. [ 18 ] The Respondent also raises a preliminary issue regarding the admissibility of the Applicant’s affidavit. [ 19 ] Based on the above, I consider the following issues: Preliminary issue: Is the Applicant’s affidavit admissible? Was the Second Review Decision unreasonable? [ 20 ] Issue (b) is subject to review on the reasonableness standard. The role of the Court is to review the reasons given by the [NAME] and determine whether the decision was based on “an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis” and that it was justified in relation to the facts and law: Vavilov at para 85. [ADDRESS] will intervene only if it is satisfied “there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency” : Vavilov at para 100. It is not the role of a judicial review court to reweigh or re-assess the evidence and come to its own conclusion: Vavilov at para 125. The onus is on the Applicant to demonstrate the Second Review Decision is unreasonable.

III. ANALYSIS A. Preliminary issue: Is the Applicant’s new evidence admissible? [ 21 ] The Applicant filed an affidavit which he says demonstrates that he earned the requisite income in 2019 and 2020 to be eligible for the CRB. The Affidavit attaches two exhibits: a copy of his 2019 tax return showing a net self-employment income of $1081.45, and a copy of his 2020 tax return showing a net self-employment income of $4579.00. The exhibit of his 2020 tax return shows handwritten notes, presumably made by the Applicant. These notes align with a statement in the body of his affidavit wherein the Applicant explains that the $4579.00 shown on the 2020 return “was earned in January of 2020. Going back 12 months previous to this and adding $1081.45 from … my 2019 tax return to the $4579 from … my 2020 tax return equals over $5000 which means I did qualify for covid relief benefits” . [ 22 ] The Respondent argues that the evidence in the Applicant’s affidavit was not before the [NAME] and is therefore not admissible. [ 23 ] I agree. The general rule is that only evidence that was before an administrative decision-maker (here, the [NAME]) is admissible in a judicial review. There are exceptions to this general rule. The court may admit additional evidence that was not before the decision-maker below where: (i) it provides general background information that does not involve evidence relevant to the merits of the matter decided by the administrative decision-maker, (ii) it shows procedural defects that cannot be found in the record of the administrative decision-maker, and (iii) there was an absence of evidence before the administrative decision-maker when they made a related finding: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v [NAME] ([NAME]) , 2012 FCA 22 [ [NAME] ] at para 20. [ 24 ] The affidavit does not fall under any of the exceptions to the general rule. The [NAME] exceptions do not apply to situations where an applicant could have, but did not, submit evidence to the administrative decision-maker that the applicant later seeks to have admitted before the Court: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General ), 2024 FC 157 at para 18, citing [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2021 FC 667 at para 20. [ 25 ] Accordingly, the Applicant’s affidavit will not be considered in determining this judicial review. B. Was the Second Review Decision Unreasonable [ 26 ] I am not persuaded that the [NAME] unreasonably refused the Applicant’s late request for a second review. [ 27 ] Section 31(1) of the CRBA requires that a second review be requested within 30 days of the letter, “or any further time that the Minister may allow.” [ 28 ] The First Review Decision was rendered on March 9, 2022. The presumptive deadline for the Applicant to request a second review was April 8, 2022. The Applicant did not request a second review until December 29, 2023, 630 days after the expiry of the presumptive deadline. [ 29 ] Notably, the Applicant’s request for a second review did not explain or even acknowledge the delay. [ 30 ] In these circumstances, I am not persuaded that the discretion in the legislation to extend the time to request a second review was exercised unreasonably. The reasons provided by the [NAME] to refuse an extension are set out in its notes. The [NAME] noted the delay of more than 1.5 years, the absence of any explanation for the late request, and, following a review of the [NAME]’s internal notes, found no evidence that the Applicant had demonstrated a continuing intention to pursue the matter. The reasons bear the hallmarks of reasonableness, namely justification, transparency and intelligibility based on the relevant legal and factual constraints: Vavilov at para 99. [ 31 ] Even if the [NAME] were to have accepted that he was away helping sick family members and he did not receive the March 9, 2022 letter, this would only explain the first 157 days of the 630 day delay in requesting his second review. By September 12, 2022, the Applicant knew about the March 9, 2022 letter, the deadline to commence a second review and instructions on how to do so. There is no evidence that the Applicant followed these instructions or - short of making more calls to the [NAME] a year later - took any action to file the second review until December 2023. The Applicant waited more than 15 months following his September 2022 discussions with the [NAME] to file his request for a second review. These actions do not demonstrate a continuing intent to pursue a second review. [ 32 ] While the Applicant’s ineligibility for the CRB as determined by the First Review Decision set out in the March 8, 2022 letter is not the subject of this judicial review, for the [NAME] of the Applicant, I offer the following assessment. Based on the record before me, the First Review Decision does not reveal any error that might cause this Court to set it aside. The Applicant did not file any supporting documents to verify his self-employment earnings in 2019 and 2020. Based on the limited material before the first reviewer it cannot be said that the First Review Decision was unreasonable. Further, there has been no suggestion that the process was unfair.

IV.

CONCLUSION [ 33 ] There is no basis for the Court to interfere with the decision and therefore the judicial review will be dismissed. [ 34 ] The Respondent has not sought costs and so none will be awarded.

JUDGMENT in T-2734-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. No costs are awarded. "Meaghan M. Conroy" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-2734-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta DATE OF HEARING: June 10, 2025

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: CONROY J. DATED: June 4, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant (Self-Represented) [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Edmonton, Alberta For The Respondent