Docket: T-238-24
Citation: 2024 FC 2069
Ottawa, Ontario, December 19, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Blackhawk
BETWEEN: |
NEGAR MOGHTADERI |
Applicant |
and |
CANADA REVENUE AGENCY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA |
Respondents |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the decision by the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) dated January 9, 2024, to deny her application for the Canada Recovery Benefit (“CRB”) because she did not have a 50% reduction in her average weekly income (“Decision”). The Applicant is also seeking a declaration that the CRA erred in its determination of her eligibility.
[2] For the reasons that follow, this application is dismissed.
II. Background
[3] The Applicant applied for and received CRB for periods 2 to 11 from October 11, 2020, to February 27, 2021 (“Periods at Issue”).
[4] On September 26, 2022, the Applicant was advised to provide supporting documents to demonstrate that she had at least a 50% reduction in her average weekly income due to COVID-19. The Applicant provided payroll and record of employment documents on November 6, 2022.
[5] On April 12, 2023, a denial letter was sent to the Applicant notifying her that she was not eligible for CRB because she did not have a 50% reduction in her average weekly income. The Applicant requested a second review by letter dated April 26, 2023, and included additional payroll documents from June 20, 2020, to March 7, 2021.
[6] On December 5, 2023, the Second Reviewer spoke to the Applicant via telephone. Her work history was confirmed, and the Second Reviewer requested additional paystubs for March to October 2020 before December 19, 2023.
[7] On December 17, 2023, the Applicant provided a letter and bank statements from March 15, 2020, to October 26, 2020.
[8] The Applicant commenced her application for judicial review on February 8, 2024. She alleges the CRA incorrectly and/or unreasonably interpreted and applied relevant law, and that the CRA disregarded or failed to consider relevant evidence.
III. Relevant Legislation
[9] The eligibility requirements for CRB are set out in subsection 3(1) of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020, c 12, s 2 [CRB Act]:
Eligibility
|
Admissibilité
|
3 (1) A person is eligible for a Canada recovery benefit for any two-week period falling within the period beginning on September 27, 2020 and ending on October 23, 2021 if
|
3 (1) Est admissible à la prestation canadienne de relance économique, à l’égard de toute période de deux semaines comprise dans la période commençant le 27 septembre 2020 et se terminant le 23 octobre 2021, la personne qui remplit les conditions suivantes :
|
…
|
[…]
|
(d) in the case of an application made under section 4 in respect of a two-week period beginning in 2020, they had, for 2019 or in the 12-month period preceding the day on which they make the application, a total income of at least $5,000 from the following sources:
|
d) dans le cas d’une demande présentée en vertu de l’article 4 à l’égard d’une période de deux semaines qui débute en 2020, ses revenus provenant des sources ci-après, pour l’année 2019 ou au cours des douze mois précédant la date à laquelle elle présente sa demande, s’élevaient à au moins cinq mille dollars :
|
(i) employment,
|
(i) un emploi,
|
(ii) self-employment,
|
(ii) un travail qu’elle exécute pour son compte,
|
(iii) benefits paid to the person under any of subsections 22(1), 23(1), 152.04(1) and 152.05(1) of the Employment Insurance Act,
|
(iii) des prestations qui lui sont payées au titre de l’un des paragraphes 22(1), 23(1), 152.04(1) et 152.05(1) de la Loi sur l’assurance-emploi ,
|
(iv) allowances, money or other benefits paid to the person under a provincial plan because of pregnancy or in respect of the care by the person of one or more of their new-born children or one or more children placed with them for the purpose of adoption, and
|
(iv) des allocations, prestations ou autres sommes qui lui sont payées, en vertu d’un régime provincial, en cas de grossesse ou de soins à donner par elle à son ou ses nouveau-nés ou à un ou plusieurs enfants placés chez elle en vue de leur adoption,
|
(v) any other source of income that is prescribed by regulation;
|
(v) une autre source de revenu prévue par règlement;
|
(e) in the case of an application made under section 4 by a person other than a person referred to in paragraph (e.1) in respect of a two-week period beginning in 2021, they had, for 2019 or for 2020 or in the 12-month period preceding the day on which they make the application, a total income of at least $5,000 from the sources referred to in subparagraphs (d)(i) to (v);
|
e) dans le cas d’une demande présentée en vertu de l’article 4, par une personne qui n’est pas visée à l’alinéa e.1), à l’égard d’une période de deux semaines qui débute en 2021, ses revenus provenant des sources mentionnées aux sous-alinéas d)(i) à (v) pour l’année 2019 ou 2020 ou au cours des douze mois précédant la date à laquelle elle présente sa demande s’élevaient à au moins cinq mille dollars;
|
IV. Issues and Standard of Review
[10] The issues on this application are:
What is the applicable standard of review for the Decision?
Was the Decision reasonable?
A. Standard of Review
[11] The standard of review applicable to the Decision is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at paras 10, 23).
[12] Reasonableness review is a deferential standard and requires an evaluation of the administrative decision to determine if the decision is transparent, intelligible, and justified (Vavilov at paras 12–15, 95). Reasons will satisfy these criteria if the Court is able to understand why the decision was made (Vavilov at paras 85–86).
[13] The Court must be satisfied that any shortcomings in the decision are sufficiently central or significant to intervene and render the decision unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100).
B. Is the Decision Reasonable?
[14] The Applicant argued that the Decision is unreasonable because the online CRB application form was unclear and/or misleading, and that she did in fact experience at least a 50% reduction in income as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore, she is eligible for the benefit.
[15] The Respondent argued that the Decision is reasonable. They noted that the Second Reviewer applied the CRB Act based on the original meaning of the eligibility requirements. To be eligible for CRB, an applicant must have income of at least $5,000 for 2019 or the 12-month period preceding the application date (CRB Act, s 3(1)(f)). The sources of income include employment, self-employment, and certain benefits relating to maternity or parental leaves (CRB Act, s 3(1)(d)). The Second Reviewer reasonably interpreted the CRB Act to include periods where the Applicant had no income and periods where the Applicant received Employment Insurance benefits (Saadi v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 648 [Saadi] at para 13). Further, the Respondent argues that they were bound by the CRB Act, they considered the correct criteria, and they set out their calculations in their reasons for Decision (Flock v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 305 [Flock] at para 20).
[16] The CRB was introduced on October 2, 2020, by the CRB Act. The eligibility requirements are found in section 3(1). Income includes benefits paid from Employment Insurance, as set out at subparagraph 3(1)(d)(iii). Accordingly, the Second Reviewer reasonably included employment insurance payments in the calculations to determine the Applicant’s eligibility for the CRB. The Second Reviewer correctly interpreted the CRB Act based on the ordinary meaning of the words, and “[a]ccording to the ordinary sense of the concept of average, the periods during which income is zero must be taken into account”
(Saadi at para 14).
[17] The eligibility criteria established by section 3 of the CRB Act are statutory and non-discretionary. The Second Reviewer had no choice but to apply the CRB Act. Despite the Applicant’s reasonable belief that she would be eligible for the CRB, the legal doctrine of legitimate expectations is limited to procedural relief and does not ensure a particular outcome. Ultimately, the CRB Act is paramount and determinative of this application (Flock at para 23).
V. Conclusion
[18] The Decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness. The Second Reviewer’s calculations and reasons are clear. The Second Reviewer clearly set out their calculations regarding the Applicant’s 2019 and 2020 yearly incomes, and her prior income for the 12 months preceding the application date, as required by the CRB Act. The reasons for decision are justified, transparent, and intelligible.
[19] While I sympathise with the Applicant and understand that this Decision will result in hardship, the Applicant’s disagreement with the Decision does not make it unreasonable.
[20] The Respondent has requested an order for costs in this application. The Applicant is self-represented and argued her case in good faith. Having considered all the factors for an award of costs, in the circumstances, I am exercising my discretion to not make an award of costs in this application.
Email this Content