Pavlakos v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FC 726

Date: 20260604

Docket: T-3856-25

Citation: 2026 FC 726

Toronto, Ontario, June 4, 2026

PRESENT: Mr. Justice Pentney

REASONS AND JUDGMENT

[1] The Applicant, Demetrios (Jimmy) Pavlakos, operates a cabinetry and millwork business. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he applied for and received the Canada Emergency Recovery Benefit (CERB), the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) and the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit (CWLB) for various periods between March 2020 and January 2022.

[2] The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) later decided to validate the Applicant’s eligibility for the benefit. On first review, the Applicant was found ineligible for these benefits because it was not possible to validate his eligible income or the reasons the Applicant had applied for these programs. The Applicant applied for a second review of his eligibility, and he later provided some bank account documents and pay statements to support his claim that he was eligible for the benefits. The officer conducting the second review (Second Reviewer) spoke with the Applicant and his accountant by phone and asked for further documentation to demonstrate his eligibility for the benefits. The Applicant did not provide any of the requested documents.

[3] On July 23, 2025, the Second Reviewer found the Applicant was not eligible for the benefits because the information he had provided did not establish the timeline of his earnings. The letter sent to the Applicant’s online CRA account (CRA Account) indicated that if he disagreed with the decision he could apply for judicial review in this Court within 30 days.

[4] The Applicant states that he only became aware of the decision on September 17, 2025, when he checked his online account. On that date both the Applicant and his tax advisor contacted the CRA. The Applicant was advised that he should apply for judicial review in this Court. The Applicant contacted the CRA on the following day and again on October 1, 2025. He was advised to file for judicial review. On October 3, 2025, he filed this application for judicial review.

[5] There are two issues in this case: (i) Should the Applicant be granted an extension of time?; (ii) Is the second review decision unreasonable?

[6] No extension is needed: The Respondent says that the Applicant should not be granted an extension of time, because he should have been aware of the decision before September 17, 2025. The Second Review decision letter was issued on July 23, 2025, and the Applicant should have received it either online via his CRA Account, or in paper copy. For his part, the Applicant says that he only learned of the decision when he logged on to his CRA Account; he did not receive any email or letter from CRA advising him that the decision had been made. As discussed below, the Applicant states that he had not realized that the decision would be taken so soon; he thought he had an opportunity for more of a dialogue with the CRA.

[7] The 30-day time limit began to run the moment the Applicant had knowledge of the decision: Meeches v. Assiniboine, 2017 FCA 123 at para 40. The only indication about when that happened in this case is the Applicant’s statement that he became aware of the decision when he logged onto his CRA Account on September 17, 2025. There is no evidence from the Respondent about whether the decision was sent by mail, or whether they sent the Applicant an email notifying him that he had correspondence in his online portal. Absent this, there is no basis to question the Applicant’s statement. Although the Applicant should have put his evidence on this point in his affidavit so that it was before the Court by way of sworn evidence, I am prepared to accept his statement in open Court to this effect, given the circumstances.

[8] I am not persuaded that the Applicant needs an extension of time. He became aware of the second review decision on September 17, 2025, and initiated his application for judicial review on October 3, 2025, well within the 30-day time limit.

[9] The decision is reasonable and procedurally fair: The Applicant argues that the decision is unreasonable because the CRA failed to consider critical evidence that directly establishes that he was eligible for the benefits. He points to various pieces of information, including pre-pandemic pay stubs indicating his income, Ontario government lockdown orders that forced him to close down his operations, and bank statements showing that he earned no income during the relevant periods. The Applicant submits that if the CRA had considered the evidence now on the record, the result would have been different. He asks that the decision be quashed so that he can have a dialogue with CRA, because he says that he has all of the information they need to demonstrate that he was eligible for these benefits.

[10] The Certified Tribunal Record includes a letter to CRA dated September 17, 2025, from the Applicant’s accountant. That letter states that the accountant called the number of the Second Reviewer when he realized that he would not be able to provide the documents by July 7. The letter states that the accountant did not receive any response to the message he left. The accountant then experienced a serious family health matter that prevented him from following up further on this matter. There is no evidence of any other contact with CRA by either the Applicant or the accountant following the phone conversation and prior to September 17, 2025.

[11] The Applicant claims that he never had a “First Review”, because he was never contacted or given the chance to provide any information to demonstrate his eligibility. As regards the second review, he says that he did not realize that the July 7 deadline was final, or that a decision would be taken before he had an opportunity to provide more information. He argues that he had no one to contact at CRA because the Second Reviewer’s number became inactive at some point after the accountant’s call. The Applicant submits that he should be given the chance to speak with someone at CRA and provide the required information.

[12] While I have some sympathy for the position the Applicant finds himself in, I cannot accept his argument. I can find no basis to conclude that the decision is unreasonable or that he was denied procedural fairness. The main reasons for my conclusion are that the Applicant was advised of the further information that was needed and had the opportunity to provide it, and he acknowledges that the information he now seeks to provide was not put before the Second Reviewer before the decision was taken.

Regarding the new evidence, the law is clear on this point: the general rule is that applications for judicial review are to be decided based on the evidence that was before the decision-maker: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22. While there are some exceptions to this rule, none apply here. The further evidence submitted by the Applicant on judicial review is not admissible, because the case must be assessed based on the record that was before the Second Reviewer.

[13] The Applicant and his accountant were asked to provide specific information to establish when he earned the income reflected in the documentation he had provided. The Second Reviewer explained that the information was needed to link the Applicant’s income from the company to the specific periods in which it was earned because that is what was required to assess his eligibility for the various benefits. This was of particular importance in this case, because the notes of the call with the Second Reviewer show that the Applicant’s accountant had explained that while “the business recognizes the salary [earned, it is] often not paid. This pay is owed at a later time.” The Second Reviewer then explained that the Applicant’s pay stubs needed to be corroborated with a “paper trail” to connect the pay with the actual time the work was done.

[14] The Second Reviewer’s notes show that they “requested documents with a deadline of July 7, 2025, to be submitted via my account using [a specific case number]…” As noted earlier, no further documents were provided by July 7, 2025. There is no indication that the Applicant or his accountant objected to the July 7 deadline, and the only contact with CRA between that date and September 17 appears to have been a single call to the Second Reviewer’s number. There is no indication of precisely what date that call was made, or that any effort was made to obtain an extension of time via the Applicant’s CRA Account.

[15] Based on this chronology, I cannot find any basis to conclude that there was any denial of procedural fairness. Moreover, in light of the information in the record and the failure to provide any of the information requested by the Second Reviewer, it was not unreasonable to find the Applicant was not eligible for the benefits.

[16] For the sake of completeness, I will add the following. Even if I had decided to consider the further documents that the Applicant provided, the result would be the same because the additional information was not responsive to what the Second Reviewer had requested. The Second Reviewer asked for complete pay statements or corroborating documents for tax years 2020 to 2022 to support when the income reported on the Applicant’s taxes was earned. They also asked for bank statements with annotations showing the deposit of his pay, or an explanation for the lack of deposits. The Applicant did not provide these – instead, he provided two additional pay statements from late 2019 and early 2020 and bank statements showing the deposit of this pay, as well as a statement describing the impact of COVID-19 on his business activities.

[17] The Applicant cited two authorities of this Court in support of his case: Maheshwari v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1822 [Maheshwari] and Godin v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 1386 [Godin]. I find that both cases are distinguishable. In Maheshwari, the decision was found to be unreasonable because the CRA officer had not considered the applicant’s notice of assessment, which was part of the record before them. In this case, there is no indication that the Second Reviewer failed to consider any of the evidence that was before them at the time the decision was made. In Godin, this Court found that the applicant was denied procedural fairness because the CRA officer did not ask for documents that could have proved his eligibility before finding him ineligible. That case is different from the case at hand, because in this case the Second Reviewer requested specific documents, but those documents were not provided before the deadline.

[18] In light of the information in the record, there is no basis to find that the decision is unreasonable. The Applicant did not provide documentation to confirm whether he had actually earned the income he had reported on his tax returns within the deadline for doing so, and he did not request an extension of time so that he could provide that information. The non-discretionary statutory requirements for each of the benefits the Applicant received required, among other things, that he had experienced a reduction in his earnings due to COVID-19, and this required information to clarify when he earned the income he had declared. The onus was on the Applicant to establish that he was entitled to receive the benefits, but the information he provided was not sufficient to meet that test.

[19] The decision is reasonable. The application for judicial review will be dismissed, without costs.

JUDGMENT in T-3856-25

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. No costs are awarded.

"William F. Pentney"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: