Federal Court Rejects Motion to Strike CRB Eligibility Review

Date: 20260604 Docket: T-289-26 Citation: 2026 FC 734 Toronto, Ontario, June 4, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, brings this motion to strike the Applicant’s Notice of Application which seeks judicial review of a letter the Applicant received from the Canada Revenue Agency [[NAME]] in connection with the [NAME]’s review of his eligibility for Canada Recovery Benefits [CRB]. The Respondent submits that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s application [Application] as the letter is a “courtesy letter” as opposed to a “decision” or a “matter” and therefore is not subject to judicial review under paragraph 18.1(3)(b) of the Federal Courts Act , RSC 1985, c F-7 [ Federal Courts Act ]. [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, I am dismissing this motion as it is not plain and obvious based on the circumstances pleaded in the Notice of Application that the impugned letter does not affect the Applicant’s legal rights or cause him prejudice and therefore cannot be the subject of judicial review.

II. Facts [ 3 ] The allegations of fact set out in the paragraphs that follow are taken from two sources. First, I have relied on the allegations of fact pleaded in the Notice of Application, which are presumed to be true for the purposes of this motion ( [COMPANY] v Canada (National Revenue) , 2013 FCA 250 at para 52 [ [NAME] ]). Second, I have allowed the affidavit of [NAME] [[NAME]] affirmed March 11, 2026. [NAME], is employed as a Program Officer in the COVID Benefits Verification Section with the [NAME]. His affidavit attaches copies of the First Decision Letter and the Second Review Letter (defined below), which are admissible as documents referred to in the Notice of Application ( [NAME] at paras 53-54). [ 4 ] The Applicant received a letter from the [NAME] dated June 27, 2025, advising that he had been found ineligible for the CRB on the basis that he had not experienced a 50% reduction in his average weekly income. The letter ends by stating that if the Applicant disagrees with the result of the second review, he could seek judicial review of the decision in the Federal Court. The Applicant refers to this letter as the “First Decision Letter.” [ 5 ] On July 17, 2025, the Applicant claims that a [NAME] officer provided him with a 180-day extension [Extension], which the Applicant acted on by filing evidence [Fresh Evidence] within the deadline for the Extension on September 29, 2025. The Applicant pleads that the Fresh Evidence demonstrates that “[he] met all CRB eligibility requirements.” [ 6 ] On December 24, 2025, the Applicant received what he refers to as a “Second Review Letter,” which confirmed that he was not eligible for CRB. The Second Review Letter states that no further review would be offered. This letter does not refer to either the Extension or the Fresh Evidence and provides no further reasons with respect to the [NAME]’s finding on the Applicant’s eligibility. [ 7 ] The Applicant filed the Notice of Application on January 23, 2026. The stated grounds for review are: (1) the Applicant was denied procedural fairness when the [NAME] failed to acknowledge the Extension or consider the Fresh Evidence; (2) the [NAME]’s failure to consider the Fresh Evidence violates the Applicant’s legitimate expectation that it would be considered before a final decision was made; (3) the Second Review Letter is unreasonable as it fails to address the Fresh Evidence or explain why it was not considered; (4) the [NAME]’s treatment of the First Decision Letter as final without considering the Fresh Evidence constitutes an error of law; and (5) the [NAME] failed to grapple with material evidence that supports the Applicant’s eligibility.

III. Issues [ 8 ] The Respondent’s motion raises the following issues: Is the Second Review Letter the proper subject of judicial review? Is the Applicant out of time to judicially review the First Decision Letter? IV. Analysis A. Is the Second Review Letter the proper subject of judicial review? [ 9 ] The Federal Court may strike out a notice of application where it is bereft of any possibility of success ( [COMPANY] v Canada , 2024 SCC 24 at para 26). A notice of application must have “an obvious, fatal flaw striking at the root of this Court’s power to entertain the application” ( [NAME] at para 47). The Respondent argues that the Second Review Letter is neither a “decision” nor “matter” as those terms are used in section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act and therefore cannot be the subject of judicial review. [ 10 ] The Federal Court of Appeal has held that the rules for judicial review apply to “applications for judicial review of administrative action,” not just applications for judicial review of “decisions or orders” and includes relief for a failure, refusal or delay to do an “act or thing,” or make a “decision” ( [NAME] v Toronto Port Authority , 2011 FCA 347 at para 24 [ [NAME] ]). The key question is whether the conduct of an administrative body affects an individual’s legal rights, imposes legal obligations or causes prejudicial effects. If it does, it may be the subject of judicial review ( [NAME] at paras 28-29). [ 11 ] The Respondent notes that the Second Review Letter is a courtesy letter that did nothing more than inform the Applicant that no further review would be offered as a decision on his eligibility had already been communicated to him. The Respondent cites the decision in He v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 1875 [ He ] in which Justice Manson held that a similar courtesy letter from the [NAME] was not a reviewable decision as it did not affect the taxpayer’s legal rights, impose legal obligations or cause prejudicial effects ( He at para 28). [ 12 ] I find that the decision in He is distinguishable. Given that I am required to take the Extension to file the Fresh Evidence as having been granted by the [NAME], it is not plain and obvious that the Second Review Letter does nothing more than merely confirm the First Decision Letter; rather, based on the facts pleaded in the Notice of Application, it seemingly retracts the Extension and/or fails to acknowledge the Fresh Evidence thereby affecting the Applicant’s legal rights or at the very least, prejudicing him. [ 13 ] Given that the Respondent was unable to adduce evidence on this motion to provide any [NAME] evidence in relation to the Extension, allowing this application to proceed ensures that the Application is decided on its merits and with the benefit of a complete record. While I acknowledge that the Respondent could be prejudiced by having to respond to a meritless application, this is prejudice that can be addressed by way of an order of costs upon resolution of the Application. B. Is the Applicant out of time to judicially review the First Decision Letter? [ 14 ] The Notice of Application states that it is an Application in respect of both the First Decision Letter and the Second Review Letter; however, the Respondent submits that the Applicant is out of time to seek judicial review of the First Decision Letter and has failed to bring a motion for an extension of time to do so. [ 15 ] The Applicant’s responding motion materials fail to clarify which decision(s) are the subject of judicial review and asks the Court to grant leave to both amend the Notice of Application if clarification is required, and to allow the Applicant to bring a motion for an extension of time. Alternatively, the Applicant asks the Court to “deem” the Applicant’s responding motion materials as having included a request for an extension of time. [ 16 ] I note that despite the Applicant’s obfuscation, the only relief sought in the Notice of Application is in respect of the Second Review Letter, which the Applicant asks the Court to set aside. It is not clear why the Applicant is hedging and failing to clarify this important aspect of his Application and it is not the role of the Court to say whether an amendment is either necessary or advisable. In any event, there are no shortcuts and requests for both leave to amend a pleading and an extension of time must be made by way of motion ( Federal Courts Rules , SOR/98-106, rr 8(1), 75(1)). [ 17 ] It is because of the Applicant’s unhelpful conduct that I am denying the Applicant costs of this motion despite his success.

V. Conclusion [ 18 ] The Respondent has not met the high burden of demonstrating that the Notice of Application should be struck on a preliminary motion.

Accordingly, this motion is dismissed. No costs are awarded.

JUDGMENT in T-289-26 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: The Respondent’s motion to strike the Notice of Application dated January 23, 2026, is dismissed; and There is no award of costs. Blank “Allyson Whyte Nowak” Blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-289-26 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: WHYTE NOWAK J. DATED: JUNE 4, 2026 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS : [NAME] FOR THE APPLICANT [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitors Halifax, Nova Scotia FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Halifax, Nova Scotia FOR THE RESPONDENT