Docket: T-396-23
Citation: 2024 FC 1252
Toronto, Ontario, August 12, 2024
PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak
BETWEEN: |
TEODOR NOVAKOVIC |
Applicant |
and |
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicant, Teodor Novakovic [the Applicant], seeks judicial review of Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] decisions related to his eligibility for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit [CERB] and Canada Recovery Benefit [CRB].
[2] The Respondent has appropriately conceded that the decisions were arrived at in a procedurally unfair manner. Even with this concession, the parties do not agree on how to resolve this application.
[3] The Respondent asks the Court to make the typical order remitting the matter back to the CRA for redetermination. The Applicant argues that the errors committed by the CRA are significant and reveal “systemic errors and/or organizational bias”
and in the absence of significant changes to the Agency’s “policy/procedures/work instructions”
and “increased accountability,”
he believes the Court should intervene to avoid a “vicious cycle of reviews and judicial reviews.”
The Applicant therefore asks the Court to make an order reinstating the Applicant’s CERB and CRB eligibility for the years 2020 and 2021.
[4] I agree with the Respondent that this matter should be remitted back to a different officer of the CRA. While this Court has the power to substitute its own decision on the merits, it is in very limited scenarios where, for example, a particular outcome is “inevitable”
or where remitting the matter would prevent the effective and timely resolution of the matter (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 140-142). I find that neither of these scenarios have been made out. The Applicant argues that the CRA should have found him eligible as he provided documentation showing eligible income levels and sources, a reduction in his income tied to COVID and the requisite reduction in his earned income. While the Applicant does not expect a different outcome from a second review as he says he has no further documents or explanations to provide, he may nonetheless still be able to answer any concerns the CRA may have with his eligibility. The bottom line is that the CRA has the specialized expertise to make these determinations and calculations and it is the entity chosen by Parliament to make them. Accordingly, this application for judicial review is granted and the matter shall be remitted back to a different CRA officer for redetermination.
[5] There shall be no order as to costs.
[6] The Attorney General of Canada is the proper respondent to this application and the style of cause shall be amended to reflect this.
Email this Content