Federal Court Rejects Challenge to CRA CRB Eligibility Decision

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260602 Docket: T-726-23 Citation: 2026 FC 715 Ottawa, Ontario, June 2, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Conroy BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and [NAME] [NAME] OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant, Ms. [APPELLANT], seeks judicial review of a Canada Revenue Agency [[NAME]] agent’s decision, dated March 20, 2023, confirming she was not eligible for Canada Recovery Benefits [CRB]. [ 2 ] Ms. [NAME] represented herself in this matter. She does not speak English or French and so presented her case through a certified Mandarin interpreter. [ 3 ] The [NAME] concluded that she was not eligible for CRB because she failed to demonstrate that she earned at least $5000 in gross-employment or net self-employment income in 2019, in 2020, or in the 12 months prior to the date of her first CRB application. [ 4 ] On judicial review, the role of the Court is not to make a new decision on CRB eligibility or to consider new arguments and evidence on eligibility. It is simply to determine, in light of the evidence that was before the [NAME], whether the decision is reasonable and whether the process was procedurally fair: [NAME] v. Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2022 FC 935 at para 2. With this role in mind, and for the reasons that follow, I conclude that the [NAME]’s March 20, 2023, decision is reasonable and the process fair.

Accordingly, the judicial review is dismissed.

I. Material Facts and Events Leading to this Application [ 5 ] Since about 2014, the Applicant and her spouse have run an [NAME] through the [NAME] [NAME]. [NAME] provided affidavit evidence explaining that the [NAME] [NAME] is similar to [NAME], but [NAME] allows users to transfer and then access funds through a mobile app, like a mobile [COMPANY] card. Payments from the app are accepted in certain shopping centres in Toronto and in China. [ 6 ] Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Applicant was unable to ship goods from China as usual, and there was a lack of demand. Consequently, her income fell by 70-80%. The Applicant applied for and received CRB from November 22, 2020, and September 11, 2021. [ 7 ] By letter dated October 18, 2022, the Applicant was advised that the [NAME] would be validating her eligibility for CRB benefits. In the letter, the [NAME] explained the income eligibility requirements and asked her to submit documents proving that she earned at least $5,000 in eligible income in 2019 or in the 12 months prior to the date she applied for CRB. The letter listed the types of documents that may be relevant to establish self-employment income such as invoices and payment receipts. [ 8 ] In October and November 2022, the Applicant provided the following documents to the [NAME]: [NAME] pay statements in Chinese for 2019; a “homemade” excel spreadsheet translating one column of the [NAME] pay statements (categorizing entries as “income” or “expenditures” ) and providing a conversion from RMB to CAD; [COMPANY] statements for the Applicant’s personal account, and [COMPANY] statements for a business account for [APPELLANT]. [ 9 ] Because of the language barrier, the Applicant authorized her husband to speak to the [NAME] on her behalf. In a call with [NAME] on November 4, 2022, a [NAME] requested an official [NAME] statement in English or a professional translation. Her husband expressed concerns about the translation costs. The agent advised that providing translations for pay statements totalling $5,000, rather than all pay statements would be sufficient. [ 10 ] [NAME]’s affidavit evidence confirms, in part, the [NAME]’s summary of the November 4, 2022 call stating that the [NAME] “request a professional translation of the [NAME] … or provide any other documents that could verify [NAME] income” . The affidavit goes on to state information not in the [NAME]’s notes and states “I offered to provide any additional information [the [NAME]] might need, such as purchase records, shipping records, or records of customer transaction conversations. However, the officer … said that there was not need for them as they would not be helpful” . [ 11 ] A [NAME] case-specific notepad entry dated November 21, 2022, states : “[COMPANY] statements only - no translation of statement.

DECISION: Ineligible CERB, CRB, CRCB since the criteria of 5k in income hasn't been met with the documents received from [NAME] and they do not support proof of revenue” , and “[COMPANY] alone insufficient” . A denial letter was then sent to the Applicant. [ 12 ] Another notepad entry dated November 24, 2022, reflects that the Applicant received the denial letter while she was still trying to source services for official translation of the [NAME] pay statements. The [NAME] advised on a call with [NAME] that it would be acceptable for her to submit a translation from a CPA who is fluent in both English and Chinese.

Accordingly, [NAME] agreed to submit a letter requesting a new review [Second Level Review] by a new [NAME] and provide translated documents.

II. Decision Under Review [ 13 ] The Applicant submitted her further documents for a Second Level Review on December 13, 2022. The documents included a 2019 [NAME] pay statements in Chinese and English translations. [ 14 ] The [NAME] notes show a call on January 25, 2023, where the [NAME] advised the Applicant’s spouse that the documents submitted thus far “ would not be sufficient to support the $5k income as there are no invoices to support the payments ” (emphasis added). The agent’s notes of this call also reflect their understanding of the Applicant’s business as “a cash business that sells Canadian retail items in a store…[the Applicant is] paid in cash and then transfer[s] the funds to the [COMPANY] in Toronto where they pull out the cash and deposit it in [the Applicant’s] [COMPANY] account.” [ 15 ] On a March 15, 2023 call with the Applicant, the [NAME] explained the reason for the first denial, namely that it was “impossible to demonstrate that the 5k$ minimum was earned” from the documents provided. The [NAME] notes state that “the only thing rep thought could help was shipping receipts. He explained to me that they were paid cash by the people that resells the goods that they buy; sometimes they deposit, other times not, so it is impossible to trace with the [COMPANY] statements.” On this call [NAME] authorized the [NAME] to speak to the [NAME] who he said was better placed to explain and provide further documentation. [ 16 ] In a call on March 16, 2023, the [NAME] explained to a [NAME] that the Applicant was paid cash through her [NAME] business, and that sometimes she deposited the amounts made into her [COMPANY] account, and other times she did not. So, the [NAME] noted, “it is impossible to trace with the [COMPANY] statements.” The accountant further advised that he used the [NAME] pay statement excel spreadsheet provided by the Applicant to calculate the Applicant’s income, and no other documents. The [NAME] noted there is no way to prove the amounts on the spreadsheet “are the right ones, or to identify the deposits as the [Applicant] would sometimes deposit big sums (several goods sales) and sometimes she would not deposit the earnings at all.” While the Applicant offered to provide shipping slips, the [NAME] noted they “would be no help.” [ 17 ] The Second Level Review report, dated March 16, 2023, concludes as follows: Eligibility criteria not met: [NAME] did not earn at least $5,000 (before taxes) of employment or self-employment income in 2019 or in the 12 months before the date of her first application. Explain your decision about each of the criteria that is not met: [NAME] provided as means to demonstrate her income an excel spreasheet [ sic ] (sales statement), personal [COMPANY] statements for all of 2019 and business [COMPANY] statements for [COMPANY], Jan to May 2019. [NAME]'s representative explained that they were paid cash by the people that resells the goods that [NAME] buys; sometimes they deposit the amounts, other times not, so it is impossible to trace with the [COMPANY] statements. [NAME] couldn't provide any other documentation than shipping slips, which would be no help. That being said, the [NAME] accountant confirmed that he used the excel spreadsheet directly to calculate [NAME]'s income, and no other documents; there is no way to prove that the amounts on the spreadsheet are the right ones, or to identify the deposits as [NAME] would sometimes deposits big sums (several goods sales) and sometimes she would not deposit the earnings at all. […] Additional Comments or Concerns : [NAME] buys and resells goods from Canada, Japan, China and Germany. The sellers send her cash money; sometimes she deposits the amounts, other times only a part of it, or none at all. The only document she possess that can demonstrate her earnings is the [NAME] statement excel spreadsheet. [ 18 ] The “Decision Notes” , dated March 16, 2023, list all the documents considered by the agent and set out reasoning that aligns with in the Second Level Review report set out above. The end of the Decision Notes states: “Denial letters dated 2023-03-20 sent on 2020-03-16” . [ 19 ] [NAME]’s affidavit states that on March 17, 2023 – a day after the [NAME]’s notes say the decision was rendered, but three days before the date on the second denial letter – he called the [NAME] and left a voicemail offering to provide more documents. The affidavit further provides: I am not able to recall when, whether it was on March 15 when I called the [NAME] [NAME] or in my voicemail with [NAME] [NAME] on March 17 that I offered to provide any additional information she might need, such as purchase records, shipping records, or records of customer transactions conversations. I offered to provide such information because I believed those documents could demonstrate our transactions with my clients. [ 20 ] The Certified Tribunal Record [CTR] does not contain a record of any voicemail on March 17. As explained, the [NAME] notes in the CTR for the March 15 call indicate that the only documents offered by [NAME] were shipping receipts.

III. ISSUES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW [ 21 ] The Applicant’s central arguments are that the [NAME] declined her offer to provide additional documents to demonstrate her income and that it prematurely terminated the Second Level Review process. She submits this was unfair. Her arguments also challenge the reasonableness of the Second Level Review. [ 22 ] Questions of procedural fairness are reviewed on a standard akin to correctness: Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2018 FCA 69 at para 54. The duty of procedural fairness requires that the person affected by a decision have the opportunity to know the evidence and the arguments to refute and to present their case fully and fairly: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 at para 127 [ [APPELLANT] ]. The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate there was a breach of procedural fairness. [ 23 ] The applicable standard of review for the merits of the Second Level Reviewer’s decision is reasonableness: [NAME] at paras 23, 25. The role of the Court is to review the reasons given by the [NAME] in the Second Level Review and determine whether the decision was based on “on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis” and that it was “justified in relation to the facts and law” : [NAME] at para 85. [ADDRESS] will intervene only if it is satisfied that “there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency” : [NAME] at para 100. Absent exceptional circumstances, it is not the role of a judicial review court to reweigh or re-assess the evidence and come to its own conclusion: [APPELLANT] at para 125. The onus is on the Applicant to demonstrate the decision is unreasonable.

IV. ANALYSIS A. Preliminary Matters [ 24 ] Before considering the substance of the judicial review, I address two preliminary matters. [ 25 ] First, during the hearing, counsel for the Respondent requested that the style of cause be amended to name the [NAME] [NAME] of Canada as opposed to the Canada Revenue Agency. The request is granted. [ 26 ] Second, I briefly address the admissibility of [NAME]’s affidavit filed in support of this matter and other evidence that the Applicant attempted to provide orally at the hearing. [ 27 ] As I explained at the hearing, the [NAME] rule is that the record before this Court on judicial review is restricted to the evidentiary record that was before the [NAME] who made the decision being challenged. Documents and information that were not before the [NAME] are generally not admissible: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v [NAME] [ [NAME] ], 2012 FCA 22 at paras 19-20. [ 28 ] There are exceptions to this [NAME] rule which include: (i) [NAME] background evidence that is of assistance to the Court; (ii) evidence of an alleged denial of procedural fairness by the decision-maker; or (iii) evidence that demonstrates the complete lack of evidence before a decision-maker for an impugned finding: [NAME] at para 20. [ 29 ] The Respondent did not challenge the admissibility of [NAME]’s affidavit so I will not dwell on the issue. I accept that the bulk of the affidavit falls under one or more of the recognized exceptions to the admission of extrinsic evidence. Specifically with respect to the evidence on the March 17, 2023 voicemail left for [NAME], I agree with the Applicant’s supplemental submissions that it is relevant to an alleged denial of procedural fairness and therefore admissible. [ 30 ] In her oral submissions, the Applicant attempted to provide additional facts that were not included in any affidavit and did not fall under one of the exceptions recognized by [NAME] . This evidence is not admissible, and I have not considered it in arriving at my decision. B. No breach of procedural fairness [ 31 ] The Applicant’s arguments on procedural fairness can be summarized as follows: The [NAME] failed to advise the Applicant that the Second Level Review process would be closed on March 16; The Second Level Review decision was made after a short phone call with the [NAME] without providing the Applicant any opportunity to participate or submit additional documents; and The March 17 voicemail left by the Applicant, which she says offered to provide more documents, was not considered or acknowledged by the [NAME]. [ 32 ] I am not persuaded there was a breach of procedural fairness. [ 33 ] At its core, the Applicant’s submissions rest on an allegation that she was told not to submit additional documents, or as argued in her written submissions, that the [NAME] refused her permission to submit additional documents to prove her income. [ 34 ] Except for the shipping slips (which are discussed below), I am not persuaded that the [NAME] prevented or dissuaded the Applicant from providing additional relevant documentation. The evidence before the Court shows the opposite. The Applicant and her husband were advised on at least two occasions that additional documents were required to demonstrate her income eligibility for CRB: On January 25, 2023, the Applicant’s spouse was informed on a phone call that the documents submitted to date (the translated [NAME] pay statements and [COMPANY] statements) “would not be sufficient to support the $5k income as there are no invoices to support the payments” .There is no evidence that the Applicant provided additional documents following this call, nor any explanation for why no further documents were provided; As set out in [NAME]’s affidavit, on a March 15, 2023, phone call, the [NAME] explained that “the [NAME] were not sufficient to demonstrate [NAME] income” . [ 35 ] With respect to the offer to provide shipping records, the [NAME]’s advice was that these would not be helpful as they did not prove that the items shipped were for the purpose of earning income. I accept that this advice dissuaded the Applicant from submitting the shipping records. However, I also agree with the [NAME] that it is not apparent how the provision of the shipping records may have helped the Applicant. [ 36 ] Contrary to the [NAME]’s notes on the record, [NAME]’s affidavit suggests that he offered to provide more than just shipping records; he says he offered to provide purchase records and records of customer transaction conversations. He affirms this offer was made on a call with [NAME] on October 18, 2022, and on the voicemail he left [NAME] on March 15 or 17, 2023. He says that the agent on October 18, 2022, told him these documents “would not be helpful” . [ 37 ] I have serious doubts that a [NAME] advised the Applicant against submitting invoices: invoices are expressly referenced in the October 18, 2022, letter from [NAME] as the kind of documents that can assist in proving self-employment income. Even if I accept the evidence of [NAME] on this point, any unfairness was cured by the [NAME]’s advice on January 25, 2023 and March 15, 2023 that the documents filed to date were insufficient to establish eligibility. [ 38 ] Finally, while [NAME] says he offered to provide “purchase records, shipping records, or records of customer transactions” on March 15 or 17, 2023, he does not suggest that these documents were in fact submitted to the [NAME]. There is no evidence before the Court that any of these documents were ever provided to the [NAME]. [ 39 ] In the circumstances here, the [NAME] had no obligation to expressly advise the Applicant when the Second Level Review process would come to an end, or to contact the Applicant following the discussion with her accountant. No such commitment was provided by the [NAME]. Further, nothing said by the accountant contradicts the information the Applicant and her husband provided to the [NAME] which might prompt the [NAME] to contact the Applicant again. In fact, the accountant corroborated statements made by [NAME] about the nature of the business and flow of funds. For example, on the March 15 call [NAME] said that customers pay in cash and that they don’t always deposit the cash into the [COMPANY]. This mirrors the information provided by the accountant. [ 40 ] Contrary to the submissions of the Applicant, the [NAME] met its duty of procedural fairness and provided ample opportunity to the Applicant to submit the necessary documents. C. The decision was reasonable [ 41 ] A secondary argument made by the Applicant is that the [NAME] disregarded “the significant financial activity evidenced through the [COMPANY] statements” which “overlooked the depth of the Applicant’s business operations” . [ 42 ] The [NAME]’s Second Level Review decision report forms part of the reasons under review: [NAME] v. Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2022 FC 139 at para 22. The decision report indicates that the agent understood [NAME]’s explanation that funds were withdrawn from the [NAME] [NAME] and sometimes these were deposited in the Applicant’s personal and business [COMPANY] accounts. The crux of the reasons on this issue state: “[NAME]'s representative explained that they were paid cash by the people that resells the goods that [NAME] buys; sometimes they deposit the amounts, other times not, so it is impossible to trace with the [COMPANY] statements.” [ 43 ] The Applicant has failed to identify how this conclusion was unreasonable. Indeed, this conclusion was entirely reasonable, given the information the [NAME] received from both the accountant and [NAME]. [ 44 ] I would also add that the translated [NAME] payment statements, on their own, do not make it possible to determine if the incoming payments constitute business income. [ 45 ] Absent exceptional circumstances, this Court will not interfere with factual findings made in the context of a CRB eligibility review: [NAME] at para 125. There is no indication that the [NAME] misapprehended or failed to take account of the [COMPANY] statements or other evidence provided by the Applicant.

V.

CONCLUSION [ 46 ] In assessing eligibility for Covid benefits, it was Ms. [NAME] responsibility to submit sufficient evidence to establish that she met the eligibility criteria: [NAME] v. Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2022 FC 1596 at para 26. The [NAME] found the evidence submitted was lacking. The Applicant has not established that the [NAME]’s conclusion was unreasonable or that she was treated unfairly. [ 47 ] The Respondent confirmed at the hearing that it was not seeking costs, so none will be ordered.

JUDGMENT in T-726-23 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The style of cause is amended so that the [NAME] [NAME] of Canada is the respondent. The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no cost award. "Meaghan M. Conroy" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-726-23 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v [NAME] [NAME] OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Held by way of videoconference DATE OF HEARING: June 3, 2025

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: CONROY J. DATED: June 2, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] For The Applicant (Self-Represented) [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent INTERPRETER: [RESPONDENT] of [NAME] [NAME], Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT (Licensed Mandarin Interpreter)