Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Brandy Shuttleworth sought a 15-day extension of time to file an application for judicial review of a CRA decision finding her ineligible for CERB and CRB benefits.

• The four-factor test for extension of time — continuing intention, merit, no prejudice, and reasonable explanation for delay — was not satisfied by the Applicant's evidence.

• No corroborating documentation was provided to support the Applicant's claims of anxiety or her alleged communications with the CRA regarding the decision.

• Grounds for judicial review were vaguely stated as "the CRA decision was based on an error" without further specifics, preventing the Court from assessing merit.

• Approximately seven months elapsed between the CRA decision and the Applicant's first contact with the CRA about the judicial review process, with no substantiated justification for the delay.

• The Federal Court dismissed the motion and awarded no costs, with the Attorney General of Canada prevailing as the successful party.

Background and the CRA decision

On July 9, 2025, the Canadian Revenue Agency rendered a decision finding Brandy Shuttleworth ineligible for both the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and the Canada Recovery Benefit. Shuttleworth, a self-represented applicant, disagreed with the CRA's determination and eventually sought to challenge it through judicial review in the Federal Court of Canada.

The motion for an extension of time

Shuttleworth filed a motion in writing on March 18, 2026, pursuant to section 369 of the Federal Court Rules, seeking an additional 15 days to commence her judicial review application under subsection 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. The motion was considered by the Honourable Madam Justice Ferron in Ottawa, Ontario. The Attorney General of Canada, represented by Chelsea Barkhouse of Justice Canada's Prairie Regional Office in Calgary, Alberta, filed a responding motion record on March 27, 2026, opposing the motion and requesting that it be dismissed without costs.

The applicable legal test

The Court applied the well-established four-factor test for motions to extend time, as set out in Larkman, Hennelly, and related jurisprudence. Under this framework, an applicant must demonstrate: (a) a continuing intention to pursue the application; (b) that the application has some merit; (c) that no prejudice to the respondent arises from the delay; and (d) that a reasonable explanation for the delay exists. While the Court acknowledged that these factors are not determinative and that granting an extension remains discretionary, it noted that the overarching question is whether an extension would be in the interest of justice. The burden of proving each element rests on the applicant.

Failure to demonstrate continuing intention

The Court found that Shuttleworth's evidence of a continuing intention to pursue her challenge was insufficient. Her motion record contained only a summary affidavit and short written representations. She stated that anxiety caused by the decision had prevented her from acting sooner and that once she "was able to re-engage with the issue," she reached out to the CRA. However, she provided no medical evidence to substantiate the claimed anxiety and her exchanges with the CRA were not in her record. The Respondent produced CRA records showing that Shuttleworth first enquired about the judicial review process on February 10, 2026 — no less than seven months after the decision, and several weeks before the motion was filed. The Court concluded that the Applicant's continued intention to challenge the decision was not proven.

Lack of demonstrated merit

Shuttleworth's grounds for judicial review were not clearly identified. Her affidavit only mentioned that "the CRA decision was based on an error," and her written representations merely stated that the basis for her challenge was that "the eligibility criteria were incorrectly applied." In the absence of any further specifics and documentation, the Court was prevented from assessing whether the application had any merit. The second factor of the test was therefore not met.

Unsubstantiated explanation for the delay

The Applicant's explanations for the delay were also found to be imprecise and unsubstantiated. Except for the Applicant's own affidavit mentioning some anxiety that the decision caused, there was no evidence to substantiate her explanation for the delay of approximately 7 months beyond the limitation period. The Court held that the fourth factor was also not met, as there was no reasonable explanation for the delay.

The ruling and outcome

Drawing on the reasoning of Justice Gascon in Clinique Sherbrooke inc v His Majesty the King, the Court emphasized the public interest in the finality of administrative decisions and the importance of adhering to the prescribed timeframes for judicial review. The Court concluded that granting the extension would require it to ignore all the established criteria and turn a blind eye to the lack of evidence supporting each factor. On April 9, 2026, Madam Justice Ferron dismissed the Applicant's motion for an extension of time to file her application for judicial review with respect to the decision, and the Attorney General of Canada succeeded as the respondent. No costs were awarded to either party, and no specific monetary amount was at issue in this procedural motion.