Date: 20241011

Docket: T-1525-23

Citation: 2024 FC 1611

Toronto, Ontario, October 11, 2024

PRESENT: Madam Justice Go

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

I. Overview

[1] Ms. Beverly Morrell [Applicant] applied for a benefit under the Canada Recovery Benefit [CRB] program. The Federal Government set up the CRB program in 2020 as part of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Applicant, who engages in self-employment by day trading, stopped working in April 2019, before the pandemic was declared, to care for her family members.

[2] The Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] initially found the Applicant not eligible for the CRB on the basis that she did not earn sufficient income from employment or self-employment in 2019. After the Applicant sought judicial review of the initial decision, the CRA conducted a new review. The CRA agent who conducted the new review [Officer] once again found the Applicant not eligible for the CRB [Decision].

[3] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the Decision.

[4] The Officer may have caused some confusion by stating the Applicant was ineligible because she was “not working for reasons unrelated to COVID-19.” To be eligible for the CRB, the Applicant must demonstrate that she was looking for work and did not place undue restrictions on her availability for work during each of the benefit periods. While I am sympathetic to the Applicant’s situation, and while the Officer used a confusing phrase to deny the Applicant the benefit, I find the Decision reasonable and I dismiss the application.

II. Preliminary Issues

[5] Prior to the hearing, I issued a direction to the parties to seek their position about redacting certain sensitive documents contained in the Court’s records concerning the Applicant and her family members. The Respondent kindly agreed to redact the Applicant’s Record and the Certified Tribunal Record [CTR] to remove these documents to protect the privacy interests of the affected individuals. The Court thanks the Respondent for their assistance.

[6] I also commend counsel for the Respondent for demonstrating their understanding of the Applicant’s status as a self-represented litigant who is unfamiliar with the Court’s procedural requirements. The Respondent does not raise any objections as to the form or content of the Applicant’s Record, even though the Applicant’s Affidavit contains documents that were not put before the Officer and there are significant deficiencies in the materials the Applicant filed with the Court. The Respondent asks the Court to consider the Affidavit as part of the Applicant’s argument, but not as evidence. I will so consider.

[7] At the hearing, the Respondent made a new request asking the Court to keep the entire CTR confidential. The Respondent submits that in light of the Court’s decision in Rémillard v Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2020 FC 1061 [Rémillard], the Respondent takes the position that the CTR does not need to remain public for any legitimate purpose, other than the portions needed for the Court’s record. The Respondent further submits that every document that is relied on by the Court is already included in the parties’ records and is already available in the public record.

[8] I deny the Respondent’s request for the following reasons.

[9] First, unlike the Applicant who is unfamiliar with the Court’s processes, the Respondent is aware that in general, a party who wishes to seek a confidentiality order must bring a motion under Rule 151 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 [Rules]. The Respondent did not do so in this case.

[10] Second, the Respondent makes no submission as to why the CTR should be kept confidential, other than citing Rémillard, which I find does not assist the Respondent. As the Court in Rémillard confirms, documents submitted to the Registry under Rule 318 of the Rules — such as the CTR — and kept in the Court’s files are subject to the open court principle and remain publicly available.

[11] As such, the Respondent needs to meet a very high bar to overcome the long-held and highly-valued open court principle: SNN v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1189 at para 4; Desjardins v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FCA 123 at para 85; Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Google Canada Corporation, 2023 FC 1038 at para 41; Sierra Club of Canada v Canada (Minister of Finance), 2002 SCC 41 at para 52; and Sherman Estate v Donovan, 2021 SCC 25 at paras 1-2, 30, 39. The Respondent needs to satisfy the Court that, notwithstanding the public interest in open and accessible court proceedings, a confidentiality order would protect against a serious risk of harm. The risk in question must be grounded in the evidence: Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Rogers Communication Inc, 2024 FC 239 at para 10.

[12] Without providing the Court with any evidence as to the risks involved, nor any submissions as to why the entire CTR should be kept confidential, the Respondent thus fails to meet the high bar that safeguards the open court principle.

III. Analysis

[13] The only main issue before me is whether the Decision was reasonable. The Officer’s reasons about the Applicant’s CRB eligibility is reviewable on a reasonableness standard per Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.

[14] The Applicant details the family issues that caused her to stop day trading, including the sickness of her mother, her sister, and her dog. The Applicant had to travel to another city to look after her mother. The Applicant indicates that she had to euthanize her dog on April 13, 2019, and her mother as well as her sister both eventually passed away. The Applicant further indicates that she contracted COVID-19 in March 2020, January 2021, and October 2022.

[15] The Applicant also raises many arguments in her written submissions to challenge the reasonableness of the Decision. At the hearing, the Applicant focused her arguments on the following points:

1. The Applicant had to care for her mother and deal with the estate when the latter passed away in 2019. The Applicant said the Officer asked her why she stopped working and whether it was related to the pandemic, to which the Applicant replied no;

2. The Applicant never advised the Officer that she was not able to work due to fear of catching COVID-19, as the Officer mistakenly noted;

3. The eligibility requirements for CRB do not indicate an applicant must work on any particular days in 2019, but only that an applicant shows that they earn a certain amount of income; and

4. The Applicant contracted COVID-19 three times, which affects her ability to concentrate to this day.

[16] While I acknowledge the Applicant’s tragic personal circumstances, I find the Applicant’s arguments do not undermine the reasonableness of the Decision.

[17] Unlike the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit [CRCB] program, where caring for a family member who requires supervised care due to COVID-19 that causes a reduction in income may give rise to the CRCB eligibility, similar circumstances do not support eligibility for the CRB.

[18] Instead, under section 3 of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020 c. 12, s. 2 [CRB Act], which sets out the eligibility criteria for the CRB, a taxpayer must meet all the criteria, including the following, during each of the two-week benefit periods:

[19] Thus, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, the CRB Act does specify that an applicant must meet all eligibility requirements for each of the two-week benefit periods. Seeking work and not putting undue restrictions on their availability are among the criteria that an applicant must meet in order to qualify for the CRB.

[20] In this case, the Applicant advised the Officer that she stopped day trading in April 2019 to support her mother who lived in a different city. The Officer noted that the Applicant suffered a reduction in income when she stopped day trading in April 2019, 11 months prior to the start of the pandemic. The Officer thus concluded the reason the Applicant stopped working was unrelated to COVID-19. As I have noted above, the Officer’s confusing phrasing does not undermine the reasonableness of the Decision as the Applicant was still unable to meet all the eligibility criteria, including subsections 3(1)(i) and (j) of the CRB Act, for the reasons noted by the Officer.

[21] The fact that the eligibility requirements for the CRB do not indicate an applicant must work on any particular days in 2019 also does not assist the Applicant. As the Respondent notes, the legislation refers to income from 2019 as a marker to assess income eligibility across all the categories of benefits. The Officer in this case did not deny the Applicant the CRB because her income from 2019 was insufficient to meet the eligibility criteria.

[22] While the Officer may have misunderstood some of the details the Applicant provided about her situation, the Officer did not misconstrue the key facts relating to when the Applicant stopped day trading and why she stopped. Taken as a whole, based on the information that was before the Officer as well as the eligibility criteria of the CRB Act, and despite the confusing language in the Decision, it was reasonable for the Officer to conclude that the Applicant was not eligible for the CRB.

[23] I therefore dismiss the Application.

IV. Conclusion

[24] The application for judicial review is dismissed.

[25] There is no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT in T-1525-23

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. The Respondent’s request to keep the entire Certified Tribunal Record confidential is dismissed.

3. The Respondent shall file redacted versions of the Applicant’s Record and the Certified Tribunal Record within 30 days from the date of this decision.

4. The Registrar shall replace the Applicant’s Record and the Certified Tribunal Record with the redacted versions within 7 days after they are filed by the Respondent. The Registrar shall then publish the decision.

5. There is no order as to costs.

"Avvy Yao-Yao Go"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: