Date: 20260610

Docket: T-3490-25

Citation: 2026 FC 769

Ottawa, Ontario, June 10, 2026

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed

REASONS AND JUDGMENT

I. Overview

[1] The Applicant, Yuriy Grebinko, seeks judicial review of a decision made by an agent (the “Agent”) of the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”), dated August 12, 2025, in which the Applicant was found ineligible for the Canada Recovery Benefit (the “CRB”) under paragraph 3(1)(d) of the Canadian Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020, c 12 (the “Act”).

[2] The Applicant’s counsel submitted repeatedly that the Agent broke a promise to contact the Applicant prior to making their decision. The Applicant further submits that the Agent failed to provide clear instructions regarding the need for documents showing his expenses for his net self-employment income.

[3] I disagree. Contrary to the Applicant’s submissions, I find that there was no promise from the Agent to further contact the Applicant and no lack of clear communication regarding the requirements to receive the CRB. There is consequently no legal basis to disturb the Agent’s determination, and I dismiss this application for judicial review.

II. Background

A. Legislative Framework

[4] 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)(e)). 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.

[5] 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).

[6] 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

[7] The Applicant is a self-employed salesperson, selling cutting tools and hospitality services. 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.

[8] In 2023, the Applicant was selected for a review of his eligibility for the CERB and CRB. After the CRA initially notified the Applicant that he was ineligible for the benefits because he had not submitted any documents, on December 9, 2023, the Applicant submitted additional documentation. However, the CRA could not reach the Applicant to question him further about the submitted documentation. Accordingly, in a letter dated January 26, 2024, a CRA agent determined that the Applicant was not eligible for the Covid-19 benefits because he did not earn at least $5,000 of income in 2019 or in the 12 months before the date of his first application (the “Initial Review”).

[9] In September 2024, the Applicant requested a second review. As part of his request, he submitted a revised tax assessment for the year 2019. He had amended this tax assessment on May 21, 2024.

[10] On July 7, 2025, the CRA Agent spoke with the Applicant on the phone. During the call, the Agent explained the types of eligible income for the CERB and CRB and asked about the Applicant’s amended tax assessment for 2019. The Agent further asked whether the Applicant had documents showing his income and expenses. The Applicant stated that he had additional documents to support his income but did not recall whether he had documents to support his expenses, which he said he would provide with the other documents if they were available. The Agent left the Applicant with a phone number and a deadline to submit additional documentation by July 31, 2025.

[11] On July 22, 2025, the Applicant submitted additional documentation, including more invoices and cheques from 2019. That same day, the Applicant’s accountant phoned the CRA Agent. In a brief call with the Agent, the accountant stated that they had submitted the requested documents and that they “don’t have any other documents to submit.”

[12] In a letter dated August 12, 2025, the Agent found the Applicant ineligible for the CERB and the CRB because he failed to show that his income exceeded $5,000 in the relevant timeframe. The Agent noted the Applicant’s gross income exceeded $5,000 for 2019. However, the Agent found that there was no documentation showing his expenses for his self-employment income. They then described that they could not rely on the Applicant’s reported tax assessment for 2019, as the Applicant had redone it after the Initial Review. Because the documentation showed that the Applicant had a gross income of more than $5,000, he benefited from the Certain Emergency Response Benefits Remission Order, SI/2022-32, exempting him from repaying the CERB. Nevertheless, the Agent determined that he still must repay the CRB (the “Second Review”).

[13] This is the decision presently under review.

III. Preliminary Issue

[14] The Respondent submits that several documents in the Application Record purporting to show the Applicant’s expenses in 2019 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 (“Greeley”) at paragraph 28 (citing Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 (“Access Copyright”) at para 20). These documents are located within Exhibit 10 to the Affidavit of Yuriy Grebinko, dated October 24, 2025.

[15] 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 is 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).

[16] There are narrow exceptions to this general prohibition against admitting new evidence in a judicial review. In brief, these exceptions allow a reviewing court to admit new evidence where it: (1) provides general background that might assist the Court in understanding the issues relevant to the judicial review; (2) is necessary to bring the Court’s attention to procedural defects; or (3) highlights the complete absence of evidence before the administrative decision maker (Archer v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 1614 (“Archer”) at para 30). All of these exceptions uphold the different roles of the reviewing court and the administrative decision maker (Access Copyright at para 20; Greeley at para 29). Admitting new evidence that attempts to resolve the issue in dispute undermines Parliament’s choice to delegate its authority to the decision maker by allowing the Court to usurp the decision maker’s fact-finding role.

[17] Although counsel for the Applicant has presented these documents as demonstrating the lack of evidence that was before the decision maker due to the alleged lack of procedural fairness, I do not find that these documents are admissible under the second or third exceptions outlined in Access Copyright. The documents submitted do not address any alleged procedural defect, instead they speak to the heart of the factual question that was at issue in the Second Review. Accordingly, they amount to an impermissible attempt to improve the Applicant’s position on judicial review compared to what it was before the decision maker (Gordillo v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FCA 23 at paras 68-69). Simply alleging procedural fairness is insufficient to allow this Court to admit new evidence that pertains directly to the merits of the issue.

IV. Issues and Standards of Review

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

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

[20] 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).

[21] 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).

[22] 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).

[23] 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 (“Baker”) at paras 21-28 (SCC) (see also Canadian Pacific Railway Company at para 54). In the context of CRB eligibility, as my colleague Justice Blackhawk noted, 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).

V. Analysis

A. The Second Review was Conducted in a Procedurally Fair Manner

[24] The Applicant submits that the Second Review was rendered in a procedurally unfair manner because the Agent did not clearly request documents establishing the Applicant’s expenses. The Applicant further submits that he reasonably expected the Agent to have called him before making the determination to request documents establishing his expenses and clarify that his tax reassessment was insufficient to establish his net self-employment income. In support of this expectation, the Applicant submits that the Agent promised to call him before making a decision and that the CRA’s Policy on Confirming Covid-19 Benefits Eligibility (the “Policy”) requires such a phone call for clarification.

[25] I have thoroughly reviewed the record but do not find any evidentiary basis for the Applicant’s submissions.

[26] Contrary to the repeated assertion from the Applicant’s counsel that the Agent broke a promise to call the Applicant, the record does not show any such promise existed. In fact, the record appears to show the opposite. Although the Applicant’s affidavit states that his accountant told him that the Agent had promised to phone if they needed additional documents, there is no note of this statement on the record. Indeed, far from any promise to phone the Applicant after the Agent called him on July 7, 2025, the Agent provided their phone number and availability along with a deadline for the Applicant to submit any additional documents. While on the call with the Applicant, the Agent specifically stated that if no information was provided by the deadline, the “decision will be based on the information available on account and [the Applicant] will be notified by Decision letter in their CRA online account.”

[27] I further find that there is also no indication of any promise made by the Agent during the phone call with the Applicant’s accountant on July 22, 2025. In this brief phone call, the accountant stated that “they don’t have any other documents to submit.” From this statement, it appears that there would be no reason for the Agent to phone the Applicant again. In fact, this Court has previously dismissed claims of breaches of procedural fairness for similar statements (Goff v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1605 (“Goff”) at para 43; Lee v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2024 FC 1039 at para 15).

[28] The Applicant’s reliance on the CRA’s Policy to submit that the Agent had an obligation to make further inquiries is also misguided. The Policy states that agents are to use their discretion to determine whether they need to investigate reported income further. I recognize that the Policy also states that, if the documents are insufficient or the agent has additional questions, they should contact the taxpayer for clarification. However, the CRA Agent did this. They called the Applicant on July 7, 2025, asked about income and expenses for the Applicant’s net employment income and received confirmation on July 22, 2025, that there were no additional documents to submit. There was no obligation for the Agent to contact the benefit recipient to confirm what they had already discussed.

[29] The doctrine of legitimate expectations means that some conduct of the decision maker or a relevant actor made clear, unambiguous, and unqualified assurances of a particular process they will follow (Coscarelli v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 1659 at para 20). As the Agent’s notes show, there was no such assurance in this case.

[30] The Applicant also submits that the Agent’s lack of clarity when requesting expense documents led him to believe that his 2019 reassessment could be used as an expense report. The record shows that, on July 7, 2025, the Agent had an extensive phone call with the Applicant, in which the Agent discussed the types of income required to show that the Applicant had met the $5,000 threshold, and that the Applicant should provide documents for his income and documents for his expenses. The notes further indicate that, although the Applicant was sure he could provide documents regarding his income in 2019, he did not recall whether he had documents regarding his expenses for that year. He stated in the phone call that, if he had documents to show his expenses, he would submit them with any other documents he had. There is no basis to support that the Applicant did not understand the Agent’s request for him to show expenses for establishing his net self-employment income. Indeed, the record supports that the Applicant was aware and responded specifically to the Agent’s request to show expenses.

[31] In any event, the CRA was not obliged to inform the Applicant that further evidence of his expenses was required. In compliance reviews, the benefit recipient bears the responsibility of bringing evidence of their eligibility (Archer at para 44; the Act, s 6). Agents are not generally required to ask benefit recipients to prove specific eligibility criteria or alert benefit recipients in advance of which eligibility criteria may form the basis of a denial (Dugandzic v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 202 at para 39; Zhang v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1761 at paras 35, 38). Consequently, I do not find that the Agent breached the Applicant’s right to procedural fairness.

B. The Second Review is Reasonable

[32] The Applicant submits that the Agent failed to properly apply the legal framework when determining his net self-employment income. In particular, the Applicant relies on Lescher v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1867 (“Lescher”) at paragraphs 14 to 17, to submit that it was unreasonable for the Agent to neglect to assess his income for the 12 months prior to his application and fail to identify the precise timing of his first application as to assess this timeframe. Additionally, the Applicant submits that the Second Review is unintelligible because the Agent noted both that the Applicant consistently reported net and gross income above the $5,000 threshold before and after the pandemic but refused to apply this logic to their analysis. Accordingly, the Applicant submits that the Agent unduly disregarded his 2019 tax reassessment.

[33] I disagree. The Second Review is transparent, intelligible, and justified given the factual and legal constraints (Vavilov at para 99).

[34] In the context before me, the Agent’s brief statement in their notes that the Applicant did not meet the $5,000 threshold in 2019 or in the 12 months prior to the “application period” was sufficient to show that the Agent analyzed the proper legal criteria. This case is factually different from Lescher. In Lescher, the applicant had submitted documents to the CRA that showed her income for 2019 and 2020, but the Agent had failed to conduct an analysis addressing the 12 months before the applicant’s benefit application (Lescher at para 16). In the case at hand, the Agent specifically advised the Applicant in the July 7, 2025, phone call that he had first applied for the CRB on October 12, 2020, and informed him that he needed to submit documents regarding his income for the 12 months prior to this date if he wanted the Agent to assess this period. In that same phone call, the Applicant stated that he would only submit documents regarding 2019; he stated that this would suffice for both the CERB and CRB. As such, the evidence before the Agent did not relate to the Applicant’s income in the 12 months before October 12, 2020, and, consequently, there was no need for the Officer to supply extensive reasoning on this point.

[35] Moreover, the Applicant’s submission that the Agent applied the incorrect legal test by stating that the Applicant did not earn at least $5,000 in the 12 months before the “application period” instead of the “application date” is without merit. In the decision letter dated August 12, 2025, the Agent states the proper legal test and references the 12 months before the date of the Applicant’s first application. Accordingly, I agree with the Respondent submission at the hearing that the Applicant’s submissions on this point are far from a fundamental error warranting this Court’s intervention.

[36] I further find that the Agent reasonably determined that the Applicant’s tax reassessment was insufficient to establish his net self-employment income. The Applicant revised his 2019 tax assessment in May 2024, after he received the Initial Review finding him ineligible based on his 2019 income. When the Agent asked about the reason for his 2019 reassessment in the phone call on July 7, 2025, the Applicant stated that he had made the reassessment because a CRA agent had informed him that he was ineligible for Covid-19 benefits and that he should discuss a reassessment with his accountant. The Agent’s decision to refuse to rely on the Applicant’s tax reassessment for his 2019 net self-employment income therefore reflects this statement from the Applicant. Accordingly, it was reasonable for the Agent to decline to draw an inference that the Applicant had a net income of above $5,000 without any evidentiary foundation.

[37] The Agent’s position is supported by this Court’s jurisprudence, showing that it is reasonable for CRA agents not to consider an income tax assessment as conclusive proof of income or expenses because the Canadian tax system is based on self-assessment (Lavigne v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1182 at para 43; Aryan v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 139 at paras 35-36; Walker v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 381 at para 36; Goff at para 32). I find this reasoning highly appropriate, especially in a case where the Applicant has specifically amended the tax assessment in order to address faults in a previous ineligibility finding.

[38] Given the factual record before the Agent, they reasonably applied the legal test within the Act to determine that the Applicant was ineligible for the CRB.

VI. Conclusion

[39] For the reasons above, I have found no error in the Second Review warranting this Court’s intervention. The Agent provided adequate notice of the issues affecting the Applicant’s eligibility for the CRB and relied on the Applicant’s submissions to arrive at a reasonable decision given the legal framework for the CRB. Consequently, this application for judicial review is dismissed. I further agree with the Respondent’s concession at the hearing, requesting an order without costs.

JUDGMENT in T-3490-25

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. This application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. There is no order as to costs.

“Shirzad A.”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: