Executive summary: Key legal and evidentiary issues

• Thomas Haché sought judicial review of CRA's refusal to conduct a second review of his eligibility for COVID-19 pandemic benefits, namely the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit.

• CRA's First Decision Letter found Mr. Haché ineligible and granted him 30 days to request a second review, but his response was sent 61 days later with no explanation for the delay.

• No supporting materials were submitted by the applicant in response to CRA's original 2023 request for documentation supporting his benefits eligibility.

• The applicant argued that CRA's decision was both unreasonable and procedurally unfair, asserting insufficient reasons were provided.

• CRA's internal guidance permitted agents to exercise discretion on late filings where a valid explanation for lateness was offered, which was absent here.

• Applying the Vavilov reasonableness standard, the Federal Court found CRA's decision transparent, intelligible, and justified, and dismissed the application.

Background and the applicant's pandemic benefits

Thomas Haché applied for and received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (CRCB) during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2023, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) decided to review his eligibility for those benefits. On November 7, 2023, CRA sent an Initial Contact Letter requesting that Mr. Haché provide documentation supporting his eligibility for the benefits, to be provided within 45 days. As he properly acknowledged at the hearing, he did not submit any supporting materials to CRA in response to that request.

CRA's first decision and the missed deadline

By letter dated November 15, 2024 — the "First Decision Letter" — CRA determined that Mr. Haché was not eligible for the benefits he had received. That letter informed him that he "may request a second review within 30 days of the date of this letter." On January 13, 2025, Mr. Haché telephoned CRA; the agency's internal notes record that the reason for the call was that the taxpayer enquired about CRCB owing, and he was referred to the November 7, 2023, letter. Two days later, on January 15, 2025, Mr. Haché wrote to CRA describing his family's circumstances during the pandemic and providing documents, asking CRA to "reconsider the repayment request" for the benefits he received. CRA received the letter on January 20, 2025. As the Court noted, the applicant sent his letter some 61 days after the First Decision Letter — 31 days after the 30-day administrative deadline had expired — and CRA received it 36 days after the deadline. Although Mr. Haché's letter did not mention the First Decision Letter or expressly request a second review, CRA interpreted the letter as a request for a second review.

CRA's refusal to conduct a second review

A CRA officer reviewed Mr. Haché's file, and the officer's internal notes on September 29, 2025, referred to the date of the First Decision Letter and stated that the request for a second review was received after the 30-day period to request a recourse had expired, and that the benefit recipient did not provide documentation until January 20, 2025, with no explanation for lateness. On October 9, 2025, CRA formally advised Mr. Haché that his request for a second review was received on January 20, 2025, which was over 30 days after the date of the First Decision Letter, and that therefore, "we will not complete another review of your eligibility." Mr. Haché then filed a notice of application for judicial review in the Federal Court on October 20, 2025, submitting that CRA's decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

CRA's internal guidance on late filings

CRA has issued a guidance document for use by its officers on delays for requests for a second review. Under that guidance, agents were to verify the 30-day delay to determine whether a file should be processed as a second review or whether a No Adjustment letter should be sent, according to the document reception date. While exceptions may be made for replies received beyond the 30-day delay, if a late reply is received after 30 days from the date on the denial letter, agents will look at the submitted correspondence and evaluate if the request has an explanation for being late. The guidance listed examples of valid explanations, such as the benefit recipient living in an area where there has been a recent tragic event (e.g. wildfire), a postal labour dispute, the correspondence being delivered to another office, the benefit recipient being sick, or where documents were received late but the benefit recipient had shown continuous attempts to have the case resolved. Agents were required to use their discretion and judgment in determining if the explanation was sufficient to perform a second review. Importantly, at this stage, agents were not looking at eligibility — they were deciding if they would proceed with a second review.

The reasonableness analysis under Vavilov

The Court applied the reasonableness framework set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, which requires that an administrative decision be transparent, intelligible, and justified, based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis. Justice Little emphasized that the Court's role was not to redetermine the decision, and that the Court would not reweigh or reassess the information that was before the decision maker. The Court found that CRA's reasons — both in the October 9, 2025, letter and the internal notes made on September 29, 2025 — provided a sufficient, reasoned explanation for the decision that was responsive to the facts in the record, considering the absence of an explanation for the late filing. The reasons did not need to explain expressly that the officer had considered or applied CRA's internal guidance on extensions of time. Mr. Haché argued that the information in his January 15, 2025, letter about his family's circumstances was relevant to the time extension; however, the Court noted that the contents of that letter explained the family's childcare and other circumstances during the pandemic, not during the delay period between November 15, 2024, and January 15, 2025. It was the applicant's circumstances during that delay period that could have been directly relevant to a decision on an extension of time. The Court concluded that the rationale for the decision — the absence of any explanation for the delay — was transparent, intelligible, and justified in light of the facts that were before the officer.

Procedural fairness

Mr. Haché also argued that he was deprived of procedural fairness. The Court assessed procedural fairness on a standard akin to correctness and noted that the degree of procedural fairness owed to claimants for pandemic benefits is at the low end of the spectrum. CRA had expressly advised Mr. Haché in the First Decision Letter that he could request a second review within 30 days. Even though his January 15, 2025, letter did not expressly request a second review, CRA treated it as though it did. The applicant did not contend that CRA's internal guidance document on extensions of time contained a process or procedure that the officer did not follow. When the CRA officer made the decision under review, the officer considered that letter, including what it did not contain, and then advised the applicant of its decision in writing. The Court concluded that the process used by CRA met the requirements for procedural fairness for the decision rendered.

The ruling and outcome

Justice Andrew D. Little of the Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding CRA's decision reasonable and the process procedurally fair. The style of cause was amended so that the respondent reads "Attorney General of Canada." No costs were ordered, as the respondent did not request costs. No specific monetary amount was determined or awarded in this judicial review, as the decision under challenge was CRA's refusal to conduct a second review of eligibility rather than a determination of a particular sum owed. The successful party was the Attorney General of Canada (respondent).