Executive summary: Key legal and evidentiary issues

• Matthew Sali's eligibility for CERB and CRB was denied by the Minister of National Revenue on April 18, 2024, for failing to meet the minimum $5,000 (before taxes) income threshold.

• The Applicant filed his judicial review application 494 days past the 30-day statutory limitation period under section 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act, without providing a reasonable explanation for the delay.

• CRA's Courtesy Letter of August 27, 2025, merely confirmed the earlier decision and did not constitute a new or reviewable administrative decision.

• No affidavit or evidentiary support was provided by the Applicant to demonstrate a continuing intention to pursue the application or to justify the extension of time.

• Respondent's counsel's October 2025 letter may have inadvertently led the self-represented Applicant to believe amending the application was a viable path forward.

• The Court applied the four-factor Hennelly test for extension of time and the JP Morgan "knockout punch" threshold for striking the application, ultimately ruling against the Applicant on both motions.

Background and facts of the case
Matthew Sali applied for and received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) for seven two-week periods between March 15, 2020, and September 26, 2020, and subsequently received the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) for twenty-seven two-week periods between September 27, 2020, and October 9, 2021. Both programs were established under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act and the Canada Recovery Benefits Act to provide financial support to workers who suffered income loss due to COVID-19 restrictions. The eligibility criteria under both statutes are non-discretionary and require applicants to have earned at least $5,000 (before taxes) in employment or self-employment income in 2019 or in the 12 months before the date of their first application. After a second-level review, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) determined on April 18, 2024, that Sali did not meet this income threshold and was therefore ineligible for either benefit. The decision letter informed Sali that he could apply to the Federal Court for a judicial review within 30 days.

The Applicant's response and subsequent proceedings
Rather than filing a judicial review application within the prescribed 30-day window, Sali submitted a letter of disagreement on May 6, 2024, along with additional documentation through the CRA's MyAccount portal. Over a year later, on August 27, 2025, the CRA sent Sali a Courtesy Letter stating that it would not be reviewing his file further following the second-level review decision. On September 23, 2025, Sali filed a Notice of Application seeking to judicially review the Courtesy Letter. On October 14, 2025, counsel for the Respondent, Ms. Candace Almightyvoice, wrote to Sali advising that the Courtesy Letter was not a reviewable decision and that if he wished to challenge the original April 2024 Decision, he would need to seek an extension of time and amend his Notice of Application. On March 11, 2026, Sali brought a motion to amend his application to include the Decision, effectively also requesting a retroactive extension of time.

The extension of time analysis
The Court, per Justice Blackhawk, applied the four-factor test from Canada (Attorney General) v Hennelly to assess whether an extension of time should be granted: whether there was a continuing intention to pursue the application, whether the application had some merit, whether the Respondent would be prejudiced, and whether a reasonable explanation for the delay existed. The Court found that Sali failed on multiple fronts. He provided no affidavit or other evidence demonstrating a continuing intention to pursue the judicial review during the period of delay, which spanned 494 days beyond the statutory limitation. While he had submitted further information through the CRA portal, there was no explanation for why he chose that route instead of filing a timely judicial review. The Court also noted that Sali's motion materials did not identify any breaches of procedural fairness or specific errors that would render the Decision unreasonable. Furthermore, the additional materials submitted on May 6, 2024, were provided after the Decision was rendered, and new evidence is generally inadmissible on judicial review unless it falls within narrow exceptions established in Access Copyright.

The Courtesy Letter and the motion to strike
The Respondent brought a cross-motion to strike Sali's application on the basis that the Courtesy Letter was not a reviewable administrative decision. The Court applied the high threshold from JP Morgan Asset Management, which holds that a notice of application for judicial review will only be struck where it is "so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success." Justice Blackhawk found that this threshold was met. Relying on He v Canada, the Court confirmed that a courtesy letter that merely reiterates a previous decision without undertaking a fresh reconsideration of facts or evidence does not constitute a new reviewable decision. The Courtesy Letter in question explicitly referenced the April 18, 2024 decision, restated that Sali was found ineligible, and confirmed that no further review would take place. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Courtesy Letter was not reviewable, and it was plain and obvious that the application could not succeed.

Observations on counsel's conduct
In a notable concluding remark, Justice Blackhawk observed that the Respondent's counsel, Ms. Almightyvoice, may have inadvertently created unrealistic expectations for the self-represented Applicant by suggesting that he bring a motion to amend and seek an extension of time, rather than pursuing a more efficient procedural avenue such as seeking removal of the application under Rule 74 of the Federal Courts Rules. The Court indicated that, had it been open to award costs against the Respondent, it would have done so, underscoring the importance of Rule 3's overarching principle of ensuring the just and most expeditious resolution of proceedings.

Ruling and outcome
Ultimately, the Federal Court dismissed Sali's motion for an extension of time and leave to amend his application to include the April 18, 2024 Decision, and granted the Respondent's cross-motion to strike the application for judicial review of the Courtesy Letter. The Canada Revenue Agency was the successful party in both motions. The Court made no order as to costs. No specific monetary amount was awarded or ordered in the disposition, as the proceedings concerned procedural and jurisdictional matters rather than a determination on the merits of benefit eligibility.