Date: 20241126
Docket: T-1538-24
Citation: 2024 FC 1895
Ottawa, Ontario, November 26, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice McVeigh
BETWEEN: |
LEV RAIS |
Applicant |
and |
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on November 21, 2024)
[1] The Respondent has conceded that the Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] decision dated June 7, 2024, [The Decision] was unreasonable and that I should grant this application. The remaining issue is what the relief should be.
[2] The Applicant requests an order from this Court declaring him eligible to receive the Canada Recovery Benefit [CRB]. In contrast, the Respondent argues that the relief should be to quash the decision and to send it back to be re-determined by a different officer.
[3] Briefly, the facts are that the Applicant is a self-employed Denturist; he makes castings for fake teeth and works with dentists. He operates his own business; he invoices dentists and receives cheques as payment, which he deposits into a bank account. The Applicant has various business expenses like false teeth and stationary for his office.
[4] The Applicant applied for and received CRB for the 27 two-week periods between September 27, 2020, and October 9, 2021 [the CRB Periods].
[5] In April 2023, the CRA began its post hoc validation process. By letter dated April 3, 2023, it requested documents from the Applicant substantiating the Minimum Income Requirement. By letter dated May 31, 2023, the CRA advised the Applicant that it determined he was not eligible for the CRB based on the documentation it had available. The letter noted that the Applicant had not responded to the CRA’s correspondence, but that it was not too late to provide the requested documentation.
[6] On April 11, 2023, and August 9, 2023, the Applicant mailed the CRA a series of photocopied cheques dated in 2019, issued to the Applicant by Great-West Life and various clients, along with receipts and invoices for expenses. In his April 11, 2023, submission, he stated that his income for 2019 was $32,420.47.
[7] On September 7, 2023, the CRA determined that the Applicant was not eligible for the CRB because he did not earn the Minimum Income Requirement [the First Decision]. The CRA agent’s notes for the First Decision indicate that the Applicant’s reported net self-employment income on his 2019 tax return was a net loss of $10,771.00, which is less than the Minimum Income Requirement. He confirmed during an August 2, 2023, call with the CRA agent that this income was reported correctly. Further, the Applicant did not provide the requested bank statements to support the $32,420.47 in income he claimed for 2019 in support of his CRB application.
[8] By letter dated September 29, 2023, the Applicant requested a second review of the First Decision and further submitted a copy of his 2019 income tax and benefit return, a 2019 invoice from the College of Denturists of Ontario, a 2019 TD bank deposit receipt for a cheque deposit, and duplicates of cheques previously submitted on April 13, 2023, and August 9, 2023.
[9] The results of the second review were communicated to the Applicant by letter dated June 7, 2024 (i.e., the Decision). The Officer determined that the Applicant did not meet the Minimum Income Requirement because he reported a negative net self-employment income on his 2019 and 2020 tax returns, and $4,157 on his 2021 tax return.
[10] The Officer reasoned that while the Applicant was able to submit proof of gross income in the amount of $27,433.08, he had also confirmed that his income tax return for 2019 was filed correctly. That tax return showed a net income loss of $10,771. Since the Applicant had not filed income taxes with net income over $5,000 in any of the relevant periods, he did not meet the Minimum Income Requirement.
[11] In this Application, he has now provided evidence that was not before the decision maker, but he says the certificates of his electrician and security guard licenses he filed do not make a difference to this Decision. In the CRA notes, I understand that he has amended the expense account on his 2019 tax return to reflect a net income instead of a net loss. Although this is not material before this Court, it may influence the new decision maker.
[12] The Applicant argues that sending this matter back to be re-determined is useless given that CRA will just make the same decision. He says all the documents he filed show he made at least $5,000, so sending it back does not change anything for him, as CRA will say the same thing even though he has already explained this to them on the phone and in his documents. He says that this is not the relief he needs. The Applicant states that he has no funds for a lawyer and seeks relief from the court’s ruling that he should not be required to repay CRA for the funds he received.
[13] While I cannot predict the outcome of a new review, I do not believe CRA should simply dismiss whether he qualifies without making a new determination based on any new material, as well as what has already been provided. It is worth the Applicant’s time to take this opportunity.
[14] It is not my role on judicial review to order CRA to cancel the debt owed or to substitute my decision. The relief sought by the Applicant is only available in very limited circumstances, such as set out by Justice Heneghan in Ahmed v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1496. This is not a limited circumstance in which, as an administrative decision-maker, I would grant the relief sought by the Applicant. I will order that the matter be sent back for a re-determination by a different officer and that the Applicant be allowed to file further material, if they wish, within 20 days of this decision. I will grant the relief of having the decision re-determined on a Judicial Review is appropriate and just in this situation.
[15] The Style of Cause will be amended with the Respondent being the Attorney General of Canada.
[16] No costs are not awarded and not sought by the Applicant.
Email this Content