Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant sought an extension of time to file a judicial review of a CRA decision finding him ineligible for both CERB and CRB benefits.

• Attempting to secure reconsideration from the CRA was insufficient to demonstrate a continuing intention to pursue judicial review.

• Grounds supporting the judicial review were vague and failed to identify any serious shortcoming or fatal flaw in the underlying decision.

• No reasonable explanation was provided for the delay, as neither difficulty retaining counsel nor unfamiliarity with court rules constitutes valid justification.

• Even the applicant's initial attempt to file occurred after the 30-day statutory deadline had already expired, with no explanation for this initial lapse.

• The motion was denied, though no costs were awarded given the applicant's self-represented status and absence of abuse of process.

Background and facts of the case

Babak Taslimi Hamedani received a decision from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) on October 22, 2025, which found him ineligible for both the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB). The matter came before the Federal Court of Canada in Montréal, Quebec, under Docket 26-T-130, with Madam Justice Ferron presiding. The applicant, who was self-represented throughout the proceedings, filed a written motion on March 10, 2026, seeking an additional fifteen days to commence an application for judicial review of the CRA's decision under subsection 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. The Attorney General of Canada, represented by Me Bianca Morello, opposed the motion and asked that it be dismissed with costs.

The applicant's efforts to challenge the CRA decision

Upon receiving the CRA's decision, Mr. Hamedani first reached out to the decision maker directly, requesting that they reconsider the finding of ineligibility. He then attempted to file an application for judicial review with the Federal Court registry around December 4, 2025, which was already beyond the 30-day statutory filing deadline. The registry refused to accept his documents because they did not comply with the Federal Court Rules and informed him the following day, on December 5, 2025, of what was needed to file a compliant application. After this failed attempt, Mr. Hamedani stated in his affidavit that he tried to retain the assistance of legal counsel because he could not "understand all of the required formalities" on his own. Approximately three months passed before he ultimately filed the present motion for an extension of time on March 10, 2026.

The legal test for an extension of time

The Court applied the well-established four-part test for granting an extension of a filing deadline, which requires the applicant to 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. The Court noted that while the test is discretionary and not all four factors must be resolved in the applicant's favour, they remain essential guideposts for determining whether an extension serves the interest of justice.

The Court's assessment of each factor

On the question of continuing intention, the Court found that Mr. Hamedani's attempt to seek reconsideration directly from the CRA could not be treated as evidence of an ongoing intention to pursue judicial review, relying on established precedent. Regarding merit, the Court observed that the applicant's draft application contained only vague assertions — that he had submitted explanatory letters and bank statements as documentary evidence of eligibility and that the CRA's decision was "unreasonable" — without identifying any serious shortcoming or fatal flaw necessary to quash the decision, as required under Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. The Court therefore concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that his application had any merit. As for the explanation for delay, the Court found the applicant's justifications imprecise and not reasonable, noting that jurisprudence clearly establishes that neither the attempt to secure the services of a lawyer nor a lack of familiarity with the Rules constitutes a reasonable explanation for delay. Self-represented individuals are, like any other litigants, bound by the law and the Rules.

Public interest in statutory deadlines

The Court further emphasized, citing Justice Gascon's reasoning in Clinique Sherbrooke inc v His Majesty the King, that compliance with statutory filing deadlines reflects the public interest in the finality of administrative decisions. The time limit for judicial review "is not whimsical" and exists "in the public interest, in order to bring finality to administrative decisions so as to ensure their effective implementation without delay." The interests of justice, while the paramount consideration, do not absolve applicants of the duty to meet their burden of proof on the established criteria for an extension.

Ruling and outcome

Ultimately, the Court dismissed Mr. Hamedani's motion for an extension of time, finding that he had failed to meet his burden of proving that the test is met, nor that it would be in the interest of justice to grant him an extension of time with respect to the Decision. The Attorney General of Canada prevailed in having the motion denied. However, the Court exercised its discretion under section 400(1) of the Rules and declined to award costs against Mr. Hamedani, noting that he was self-represented, that he had attempted to file an application himself rather shortly after the 30-day statutory period, that he made concise representations, and that no abuse of process could be identified in his conduct of the matter. No specific monetary amount was at issue in this procedural motion.