Date: 20260609

Docket: T-667-25

Citation: 2026 FC 757

Ottawa, Ontario, June 9, 2026

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed

REASONS AND JUDGMENT

I. Overview

[1] The Applicant, Mr. Dany Peter Hajjar, seeks judicial review of a decision made by an agent (the “Agent”) of the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”), dated January 13, 2025, in which he was found ineligible for the Canada Recovery Benefit (the “CRB”). The Agent found that Mr. Hajjar had failed to demonstrate that he had earned at least $5,000 of employment or net self-employment income in 2019, 2020, or in the 12 months before he first applied for the CRB in accordance with paragraph 3(1)(d) of the Canadian Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020, c 12 (the “Act”).

[2] Mr. Hajjar submits that the Agent’s decision breached his rights to procedural fairness and failed to account for his evidence demonstrating sufficient self-employment income.

[3] Throughout these proceedings, I have been mindful of the fact that Mr. Hajjar is a self-represented litigant and I have kept in due regard the Canadian Judicial Council’s Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006), which the Supreme Court endorsed in Pintea v Johns, 2017 SCC 23 at paragraph 4. I commend Mr. Hajjar for his organized and thoughtful submissions before this Court and sympathize with the consequences resulting from the CRA’s decision.

[4] However, I do not find a basis in law that warrants this Court’s intervention in the Agent’s determination. For the reasons that follow, I dismiss this judicial review.

II. Background

A. Legislative Framework

[5] The CRB was a social benefit intended to alleviate the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Individuals who applied for the CRB were required to have earned an income of at least $5,000 from employment or self-employment in 2019, 2020, or in the 12-month period before the day on which the claiming individual made their application (the Act, s 3(1)(d)). Income from self-employment is defined as “revenue from the self-employment less expenses incurred to earn that revenue” in subsection 3(2) of the Act.

[6] Recipients of the CRB may be subject to compliance reviews by the CRA (the Act, s 26). If a recipient is found to have been ineligible for the CRB in a given payment period, they are required to repay the amount received during that period to the CRA (the Act, s 28).

[7] A CRB recipient may challenge an ineligibility finding by requesting a second review (the Act, s 31). If they disagree with the findings of the second review, a recipient may apply for judicial review of the second review decision.

B. Facts

[8] In 2019 and 2020, Mr. Hajjar was a driver for various ride-share companies, including Uber and Lyft. His income was affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, leading him to apply for and receive the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) from March 15, 2020 to September 26, 2020, and the CRB from September 27, 2020 to October 9, 2021.

[9] In a letter dated March 14, 2023, the CRA notified Mr. Hajjar that he had been selected for a review of his eligibility for the CERB and CRB. The letter requests proof of earnings over $5,000 in 2019, 2020 or in the 12 months before Mr. Hajjar applied for the benefits. It specifies that income may be gross employment income or net self-employment income.

[10] On May 7, 2023, Mr. Hajjar submitted various documents in support of his income in 2019 and 2020. These included summaries of income earned from Uber and Lyft, e-transfer receipts, and letters from Mr. Hajjar explaining the effect of Covid-19 on his income. The reviewing agent attempted to phone several times to make further inquiries but noted that the phone number on file was no longer in service.

[11] In a letter dated October 16, 2023, an agent of the CRA determined that Mr. Hajjar was not eligible for the CERB or CRB because he had not demonstrated that he had earned either employment or net self-employment income of $5,000 or more in the applicable timeframes (“First Review”). Mr. Hajjar requested a second review.

[12] In February 2024, Mr. Hajjar submitted additional documents. These included an invoice from Trends Décor, a spreadsheet purporting to summarize his gross and net income in the relevant timeframe, and letters from Mr. Hajjar explaining his income and the hardships he faces as a person whose income is supported by disability payments. In February and May 2023, Mr. Hajjar followed up on the status of his review with additional letters.

[13] From November 26 to 27, 2024, the Agent attempted to phone Mr. Hajjar but the number on file remained not in service. The Agent noted that the review was delayed due to the Canada Post strike given that Mr. Hajjar receives correspondence through paper mail.

[14] In a letter dated January 13, 2025, the Agent determined that Mr. Hajjar was ineligible for the CERB and CRB because he had failed to show that his income exceeded the required threshold for 2019, 2020, or in the 12 months before he applied for the CERB or the CRB (“Second Review”).

[15] The Agent’s internal notes, which form part of the decision, show that Mr. Hajjar’s gross income exceeded $5,000 for the 12 months prior to his first CERB application. This gross income allowed Mr. Hajjar to benefit from the Certain Emergency Response Benefits Remission Order, SI/2022-32, exempting him from repaying the CERB. However, the Agent notes that there was no documentation showing Mr. Hajjar’s expenses to support his net self-employment income, which is required to be eligible for the CRB. Relying on Mr. Hajjar’s tax statements, which showed a net income of $2,481 in 2019 and $1,814 in 2020, the Agent determined that Mr. Hajjar was not eligible for the CRB.

III. Preliminary Issues

A. Style of Cause

[16] The Respondent submits that the Attorney General of Canada is the appropriate respondent in this matter. At the hearing, Mr. Hajjar consented to this change.

[17] In accordance with Rule 303 of the Federal Court Rules, SOR/98-106, I agree with the Parties that the Attorney General of Canada is the proper Respondent (Aryan v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 139 at paras 13-14).

B. Inadmissibility of Certain Documents on Mr. Hajjar’s Record

[18] The Respondent submits that several documents in the Application Record are inadmissible because they were not before the decision maker and do not fit under one of the prescribed categories of admissibility outlined in Greeley v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 1493 at paragraph 28 (citing Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 at para 20). The Respondent specifically challenges the monthly income statements from Lyft along with a summary of the Lyft rides Mr. Hajjar provided in 2019 and 2020 and an annotated spreadsheet purporting to show Mr. Hajjar’s net and gross income from March 2019 to March 2020.

[19] Generally, in a judicial review, the Court does not admit evidence on the record that was not before the decision maker. This is because the Court’s role in a judicial review is to determine whether the administrative decision was reasonable in light of the facts and law before them at the time of their decision (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (“Vavilov”) at paras 85, 142).

[20] Although, at the hearing, Mr. Hajjar stated that the documents he submitted for this judicial review were not new, I find they did communicate additional information compared to what was available before the Agent. For Mr. Hajjar’s Second Review, he submitted quarterly income receipts from Lyft for 2019 and 2020. He also submitted income statements from Lyft for one-week periods in January to March 2020. Before this Court, Mr. Hajjar has submitted monthly Lyft income statements for periods in April to July 2019 and September to November 2019.

[21] I find that the challenged documents include the specific dates on which Mr. Hajjar received income from the ride-share companies, which was not available before the Agent at the time of their decision. Consequently, these documents are inadmissible as they attempt to improve Mr. Hajjar’s position before this Court as compared to the record before the Agent (Gordillo v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FCA 23 at paras 68-69).

IV. Issues and Standards of Review

[22] This application for judicial review raises the issues of whether the Second Review is reasonable and was rendered in a procedurally fair manner.

[23] The applicable standard of review for the merits is reasonableness (Vavilov at para 16).

[24] The issue of procedural fairness is to be reviewed on the correctness standard (Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 79; Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at paras 37-56 (“Canadian Pacific Railway Company”); Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FCA 196 at para 35). I find that this conclusion accords with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Vavilov (at paras 16-17).

[25] Reasonableness is a deferential, but robust, standard of review (Vavilov at paras 12-13). The reviewing court must determine whether the decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, is transparent, intelligible, and justified (Vavilov at para 15). A reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision-maker (Vavilov at para 85). Whether a decision is reasonable depends on the relevant administrative setting, the record before the decision maker, and the impact of the decision on those affected by its consequences (Vavilov at paras 88-90, 94, 133-135).

[26] For a decision to be unreasonable, the applicant must establish the decision contains flaws that are sufficiently central or significant (Vavilov at para 100). Not all errors or concerns about a decision will warrant intervention. A reviewing court must refrain from reweighing evidence before the decision maker, and it should not interfere with factual findings absent exceptional circumstances (Vavilov at para 125). Flaws or shortcomings must be more than superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision, or a “minor misstep” (Vavilov at para 100).

[27] Correctness, by contrast, is a non-deferential standard of review. The central question for issues of procedural fairness is whether the procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances, including the factors enumerated in Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC) (at paras 21-28; see also Canadian Pacific Railway Company at para 54).

V. Analysis

A. The Second Review was Procedurally Fair

[28] Mr. Hajjar submits that the Agent failed to notify him of the central issue in their eligibility determination: his expenses. Specifically, Mr. Hajjar maintains that the Agent should have attempted to raise this issue to him through paper mail or through the CRA online portal when they noted that the phone number on file was not in service. Because the Agent failed to make these efforts to contact Mr. Hajjar, he submits that the Second Review breached his procedural fairness rights.

[29] As a preliminary note, I agree with my colleague Justice Blackhawk that, in the context of CRB eligibility, procedural fairness typically rests at the low end of the spectrum (Derosa v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 144 at para 19; see also Ramanathan v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1029 at paras 46-47). This is not a situation where the applicant had made known to an agent that he required written communication for any disabilities (Cameron v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 2 at para 34). Rather, Mr. Hajjar’s phone number appears to remain on his CRA account throughout the review process and none of Mr. Hajjar’s letters to the CRA state that he requires written communication.

[30] Accordingly, I agree with the Respondent that the CRA made sufficient efforts to communicate that they needed his expenses in order to calculate Mr. Hajjar’s net self-employment income. In addition to the attempted phone calls, in the letter dated March 14, 2023, notifying Mr. Hajjar of a review of his eligibility for the CERB and CRB, it states explicitly that he is required to show proof of income, which could include “net self-employment income (after deducting expenses).” Given the low level of procedural fairness required, I find that this was sufficient to notify Mr. Hajjar of the case he needed to meet.

[31] In compliance reviews, the benefit recipient bears the responsibility of bringing evidence of their eligibility under the Act (Archer v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 1614 at para 44; Dugandzic v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 202 at para 39; Goff v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1605 at para 45, the Act, s 6). As opposed to Mr. Hajjar’s submissions during the hearing, this was not a document clarification issue, which may have required the Agent to contact Mr. Hajjar. Instead, this was an issue of sufficiency, where there was simply no evidence on the record regarding Mr. Hajjar’s expenses as required by the legislative definition of self-employment income. Given the attempts to communicate with Mr. Hajjar regarding his submitted documentation and the letter explicitly defining net self-employment, I do not find that the Agent breached Mr. Hajjar’s right to procedural fairness.

B. The Second Review is Reasonable

[32] Mr. Hajjar submits that the Agent did not meaningfully review the evidence, including his ride sharing income, showing that he had an income of over $5,000 in the relevant timeframe. Mr. Hajjar further submits that the Agent conflated the applicable legislation for the CERB and CRB and maintains that he was available to work during the pandemic but avoided providing ride sharing services in order to protect his vulnerable parents. Mr. Hajjar further notes that he had no expenses for his ride sharing services because he used a vehicle owned and paid for by his mother.

[33] I have considered Mr. Hajjar’s submissions but do not find that the record before me supports any disturbance in the Agent’s determination.

[34] The Agent considered both the legislation for the CRB and for the CERB to determine whether Mr. Hajjar had earned more than $5,000 in employment or net self-employment income in the appropriate timeframes. Relying on Mr. Hajjar’s ride sharing income, the Agent determined that he had made more than $5,000 in gross self-employment income, allowing him to avoid repayment of the CERB.

[35] The central issue for Mr. Hajjar’s eligibility for the CRB, however, was that he did not provide any documentation regarding his expenses. The Agent noted that there was no evidence before them that could establish Mr. Hajjar’s expenses. Since the Act itself defines self-employment income as income minus expenses, it was reasonable for the Agent to conclude that they could not calculate Mr. Hajjar’s self-employment income without this evidence (the Act, s 3(2)).

[36] Even though Mr. Hajjar states that he did not have expenses because they were paid for by his mother, this explanation was not before the Agent. In any event, if Mr. Hajjar’s mother had paid for his expenses, it would likely have been considered a gift in accordance with the CRA’s policy on Confirming Covid-19 Benefits Eligibility, as Mr. Hajjar did not trade his services to benefit from his mother’s payment.

[37] Consequently, I find that it was reasonable for the Agent to rely on Mr. Hajjar’s filed tax returns, both of which show a net self-employment income of less than $5,000 for 2019 and 2020.

VI. Conclusion

[38] For these reasons, I have found no legal basis on which to intervene in the Agent’s determination. The Second Review is transparent, intelligible and justified in light of the applicable legal and factual constraints (Vavilov at para 90). Accordingly, while I sympathize with Mr. Hajjar’s situation, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. The Respondent has not asked for costs, and I agree that none shall be awarded.

JUDGMENT in T-667-25

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The style of cause is amended to identify the Attorney General of Canada as the proper Respondent, effective immediately.

2. This application for judicial review is dismissed, without costs.

“Shirzad A.”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: