Date: 20250307
Docket: T-905-23
Citation: 2025 FC 431
Ottawa, Ontario, March 7, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice McVeigh
BETWEEN: |
HUMAIRA BAIDAR |
Applicant |
and |
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant is a self-represented individual seeking judicial review of two decisions of the Canada Revenue Agency [CRA], both dated April 4, 2023 [the Decisions].
[2] In the Decisions, a second reviewing CRA officer [the Officer] found the Applicant ineligible for the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit [CRCB] and the Canada Recovery Benefit [CRB] [collectively, the Benefits].
[3] This matter can be distilled into two key questions. First, did the Officer fail to consider evidence indicating that the Applicant earned sufficient income to qualify for the Benefits? Second, was it procedurally fair for the Officer to render the Decisions without obtaining further information from the Applicant, despite the CRA making numerous call attempts?
[4] Regarding both Benefits, the Officer determined that the Applicant did not earn at least $5,000 (before taxes) in employment or net self-employment income during the relevant pre-pandemic reference periods. Additionally, the Officer found that the Applicant failed to meet other criteria under the CRCB. Specifically, the Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant was employed or self-employed on the day before the first application period. She was required to establish that she had stopped working during the Benefit periods or had at minimum 50% reduction in work hours compared to the reference periods. That work reduction must have been because the Applicant was caring for a child or family member for reasons related to COVID-19.
[5] For the reasons that follow, I find that this Application should be dismissed. The Applicant may have had answers to the CRA’s questions, but she failed to provide them.
II. The Benefits
[6] In 2020, the federal government introduced the Benefits to support Canada’s economic recovery in response to COVID-19. The enabling legislation is the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020, c 12, s 2 [CRB Act].
[7] The CRB provided income support for any two-week period beginning on September 27, 2020, and ending on October 23, 2021, to eligible employed and self-employed workers who were directly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, the CRCB provided income support for one-week periods between September 27, 2020, and May 7, 2022. The Minister responsible for the Benefits is the Minister of Employment and Social Development; however, the CRA administered the Benefits and conducted the validation process.
[8] To qualify for the CRB, applicants had to meet the criteria set out in section 3 of the CRB Act. Among the statutory conditions, they were required to have earned at least $5,000 of income from employment or net self-employment during one of previous 12-month periods as prescribed by the Act [the Minimum Income Requirement] (CRB Act, s 3(1)(d)-(e)). The requisite periods for the Minimum Income Requirement were 2019, 2020, or the 12-month period preceding the application date [the Requisite Periods]. For the CRCB, applicants were also required to have met the Minimum Income Requirement, which included the additional Requisite Period of 2021 (CRB Act, s 17(1)(d)-(e.1)).
[9] Income from self-employment is defined in the CRB Act to mean revenue from self-employment minus associated expenses (CRB Act, s 3(2), 17(2)).
[10] Another entitlement criterion for the CRB was proof that the applicant had stopped working during the Benefit periods or had experienced at least a 50% reduction in income compared to the Requisite Periods [the 50% Reduction Requirement] (CRB Act, s 3(1)(f), s 17(1)(f)). In the case of the CRCB, applicants were required to have had their total work hours reduced by 50% or more (CRB Act, s 17(1)(f)) [the Work Reduction or the Work Reduction Requirement]. Paragraph 17(1)(f) of the CRB Act explains that the Work Reduction must have been experienced because the applicant was caring for a child or family member for reasons related to COVID-19 [the Caregiving Requirement].
III. Preliminary
[11] The Respondent pointed to new documents provided by the Applicant that were not before the CRA. These materials will not be considered, as they do not meet any exceptions to the general rule that only evidence presented before the original decision-maker may be considered on judicial review (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 at para 20).
IV. Facts and Decisions
[12] The Applicant first applied for the CRCB and the CRB on November 5, 2020, and October 18, 2021, respectively. The relevant Benefit periods are for:
- the CRCB, the 53 one-week periods from September 27, 2020, to October 2, 2021; and
- the CRB, two consecutive two-week periods from August 29, 2021, to September 25, 2021.
[13] There are slight discrepancies in the parties’ materials regarding specific dates, but these do not affect the material factual basis or the legal arguments.
A. First Review
[14] By letter dated September 28, 2022, the CRA informed the Applicant that it was commencing a review of her entitlement to the Benefits. In response, the Applicant submitted documents on November 7, 2022. The Applicant’s submission included invoices to “K HABIB Career Counsellors”
[the Work Provider] and some corresponding bank deposits dated in 2019 and 2020 [the Invoices].
[15] A CRA officer conducting the first review [the Initial Reviewing CRA Officer] attempted to contact the Applicant by telephone three times on November 29 and 30, 2022. On the first call attempt, the Initial Reviewing CRA Officer left a voicemail asking the Applicant to call them back. The Applicant did not return the CRA’s calls or provide further information.
[16] By letters dated December 8, 2022, the CRA informed the Applicant that, based on the available information, she was not eligible to receive the Benefits [the Initial Decisions]. The Initial Decision for the CRB stated that the Applicant “did not stop working or have [her] hours reduced for reasons related to COVID-19.”
The Initial Decision for the CRCB stated that the Applicant did not meet the Work Reduction Requirement, did not qualify for the Caregiving Requirement, and was “not employed or self-employed on the day before [her] first application period.”
B. Second Review
[17] On January 4, 2023, the Applicant provided additional documents to the CRA, including a letter explaining the Applicant’s disagreement with the Initial Decisions [the January 2023 Response]. The Applicant submitted as follows:
- A letter from the Work Provider, dated December 22, 2022, stating that the Work Provider had terminated a contract with the Applicant in March 2020 for reasons related to COVID-19.
- A statement that she was caring for her husband and father-in-law, who needed medical attention at home. She included a detailed series of medical documents describing the health conditions and care requirements of these individuals. She also outlined her caretaking responsibilities and the reasons why her father-in-law was denied admission to a nursing home in March 2020 and was unable to obtain in-home support.
- Declared that she was unable to find work due to her caregiving duties and for other reasons related to COVID-19.
- An assertion that in September and October of 2020, she received work as
“self employed”
but discontinued work once again in December 2020 due to a further COVID-19 lockdown.
- An email, dated November 7, 2021, offering her an interview with Winners. She claimed to have started working at Winners that same month but provided nothing other than the interview request to substantiate her employment.
[18] The CRA considered the January 2023 Response as a request for a second review of the Initial Decisions.
[19] The Officer conducted the second review of the Applicant’s Benefits eligibility. The Officer’s second review formed the Decisions at issue in this Application.
[20] The Officer noted the following in their Second Review Report:
- The Applicant’s Invoices for 2019 totalled $7,500. The Invoices for 2019 included matching deposits into the Applicant’s bank account in the amount of $6,485. The other invoice for 2019 ($1,015) did not have a matching deposit.
- In her 2019 tax return, the Applicant reported $7,500 in gross business income but only $3,450 was reported as net self-employment income.
- The Applicant did not report any self-employment income for 2020. She submitted two Invoices in late 2020 totalling $1,800 but did not provide any other supporting documentation showing that the income was earned.
- In 2021, the Applicant reported gross and net business income of over $5,000 but did not provide any supporting documentation showing that the income was earned.
- The Officer was not able to contact the Applicant. The Officer attempted to contact the Applicant three times in February and March 2023. On two call attempts, the Officer left a voicemail asking the Applicant to call them back. The Applicant never responded to these CRA calls.
- The Officer wrote that
“[w]ithout further discussion with [the Applicant], I am unable to determine if [the Applicant] may have had other unreported income in 2020 or 2021 that could be counted toward meeting income Threshold needed to received benefits, and to ask for supporting docs for the income reported in 2021.”
[21] The results of the second review were communicated to the Applicant by letters for both benefits, which were dated April 4, 2023. In the letters, the Officer wrote that the Applicant did not meet the Minimum Income Requirement during any of the Requisite Periods. Regarding the CRCB, the Officer wrote that the Applicant was “not employed or self-employed on the day before [her] first application period”
and “not caring for [her] child under 12 years old or a family member because they were unable to attend their school, daycare, or care facility for reasons related to COVID-19. Or, the individual who usually provided care was not available for reasons related to COVID-19”
(i.e., the Caregiving Requirement).
V. Issues
[22] The issues in this Application are whether the Decisions were reasonable and procedurally fair.
VI. Standard of Review
[23] The parties correctly identify the substantive aspects of the current dispute as questions of the reasonableness of the Officer’s Decision. In order to make a determination on reasonableness, the reviewing court “asks whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision”
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 99).
[24] For questions of procedural fairness, the standard of review is akin to correctness (see Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at paras 34-35, 54-55). However, that standard is not necessarily applied in the usual way. Rather, “[t]he Court must ask whether the procedure was fair having regard to all the circumstances, and the ultimate question is ‘whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond’”
(Williams v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 960 at para 27).
VII. Analysis
[25] The Applicant introduced several arguments during the hearing for the first time. However, these arguments were not even loosely argued in her memorandum of fact and law. Even with some leeward for a self represented individual these arguments will not be considered (Kabir v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1123 at para 19).
A. Procedural Fairness
[26] The Applicant’s procedural fairness submissions boil down to her contention that the CRA was obligated to communicate with the Applicant via “written media.”
She asserts that even if she declined to answer the CRA’s phone calls, it was procedurally unfair because then she was unable to address the Officer’s concerns with her evidence.
[27] The Applicant claims that, through her online CRA account, she had indicated a preference for email communications. She further contends that “there had been a precedence [
sic]”
for the CRA to contact applicants using “printed media.”
She also cites her January 2023 Response, in which she requested communication through “CRA mail to be able [to] document all the information requested and exchanged for this case.”
[28] The Applicant asserts that she communicated her preference “[v]erbally over the phone.”
She explains that she preferred written correspondence because, at the time, she had been targeted by scam phone callers falsely posing as government officials. However, there is no record of this verbal request in the CRA’s notes.
[29] During the hearing, the Applicant also referenced government websites stating that official communication should be “effective”
and align with other federal programs. Presumably, she was referring to the CRB and CRCB programs. She also admitted that she never answered any calls from the CRA when her eligibility was being assessed. She stated that she would only do so “if [she] felt it necessary.”
This argument was not raised in her memorandum but, even if it had been, it does not impact my determination. Isolated and general statements on Government of Canada websites do not impose a legal obligation on CRA validation officers to communicate by mail.
[30] The Applicant claims there was precedent for the CRA to communicate with her in writing. However, from my review of the record, the evidence appears to show the opposite. The CRA spoke with her by phone multiple times in 2020 and 2021. It was only after the CRA began the validation process for the Benefits that the Applicant refused to communicate by phone. While the CRA did send written correspondence to the Applicant, this form of communication was limited to notices of assessment for her tax returns and the notices for the Decisions.
[31] Further, the only evidence documenting the Applicant’s written communication request is her statement in the January 2023 Response. By that time, however, the Initial Reviewing CRA Officer had already attempted multiple phone calls and left a voicemail requesting a callback, which the Applicant ignored.
[32] The Applicant has not directed the Court to any precedent requiring the CRA to abide by an applicants’ requested mode of communication. Rather, for both Benefits, the CRB Act stipulates that an applicant must provide the Minister with any information that the Minister may require in respect of the application (CRB Act, ss 6, 20). Here, the Applicant has not denied receiving the multiple calls and voicemails from both levels of reviewers. Nor has she raised any concerns about the accuracy of her telephone contact details. She confirmed that she did not answer the CRA or call them back as requested.
[33] If the Applicant was concerned about knowing the extent of the CRA’s position, she could have called the CRA after they left voicemails. Doing so would have addressed any concerns she had about “SCAM calls pretending to be calling from CRA.”
[34] It is not enough for her to simply preferred written communication. Under the CRB Act, the procedural fairness obligations of CRA officers are on the low end of the spectrum (Cozak v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1571 at para 17 [Cozak]).
[35] As the Federal Court held in Cozak, the CRA’s method of communication (i.e., phone vs. written) does not inherently constitute a breach of procedural fairness, provided the applicant has a reasonable opportunity to respond and knows what is required (Cozak at pars 17-19). There is no statutory obligation for the CRA to issue written notices where phone communication is appropriate.
[36] In Cozak, once the CRA attempted calls and left voicemails explaining the required information, the onus shifted to the applicant to respond or seek clarification. There, the applicant’s failure to engage – by ignoring calls and failing to return them – meant that the applicant could not later claim a lack of opportunity to participate in the process.
[37] The reasoning from Cozak applies to this case. The Applicant failed to respond to the CRA’s communication attempts at her own peril.
[38] The CRA’s communication in this case was fair and effective. The CRA left messages, providing the Applicant with an opportunity to engage. Instead, she chose not to respond. As someone applying for the Benefits, she should have expected verification was a possibility and taken responsibility for ensuring her application met the requirements. The CRB and CRCB programs were implemented quickly, with the understanding that eligibility verification would follow. She was given opportunities to remedy her application during both levels of review but did not fully avail herself of the process by finding out what questions the Officers had to pose to her.
[39] Next, the Applicant’s argument that the differing reasons between the first and second review restricted her opportunity to respond is moot and lacks merit.
[40] The second review process exists precisely because applicants are given another opportunity to submit evidence or address concerns. Here, the Applicant failed to respond to calls during both reviews. Therefore, her argument that she was deprived of an opportunity to address “new reasons”
crumbles. As the Court in Cozak emphasized, applicants cannot ignore calls and then argue they were unaware of key issues.
[41] In Roussel v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 809 [Roussel], the Federal Court addressed a similar issue – albeit framed as a question of reasonableness going to the merits of the decision. In that case, each reviewing CRA officer provided slightly different reasons for the denial of a CRB claim. Justice Roy rejected the argument that this resulted in a flawed decision. He reasoned that an applicant must still meet each requirement under the CRB Act, and subsequent reviewing officers are to conduct an independent analysis of the case at hand (Roussel at 36-37). Further, where new evidence is filed between reviews, as in the matter at hand, it is unsurprising that an officer’s rationale may differ in some respects.
[42] Finally, contrary to the Applicant’s suggestion at the hearing, the CRA was not required to review her husband and father-in-law’s tax returns to see that they had claimed disability status. The Applicant cannot reverse the onus during the verification process. When she applied, it was her responsibility to provide the necessary information. While I have compassion for the Applicant’s situation, the CRB Act does not provide for such considerations as there was other criteria to meet.
[43] As explained below, the fact that the Applicant’s family members had claimed disability is immaterial. She did not qualify for the CRCB because she did not meet the Minimum Income Requirement. She also failed to provide proof of a reduction in her work hours because she had to provide COVID-19-related caregiving. While the Applicant’s father-in-law and husband may have needed care, she did not meet the other requirements.
[44] The Applicant had a duty to engage with the process. After ignoring multiple communication attempts, she cannot now claim procedural unfairness. I find no breach of procedural fairness in this case.
B. Reasonableness
[45] Regarding the Caregiving Requirement, the Applicant outlines evidence from the record, which demonstrates that she was caring for her father-in-law who required her supervision after being refused third-party care services. She suggests that the Officer was “not able to connect the link between the information provided… [and her] CRCB eligibility.”
The Applicant distinguishes her submission of evidence from that provided to the CRA in Vincent v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 803 at para 32. She argues that the Officer’s misapprehension of her evidence rendered the Decision unreasonable.
[46] For the Minimum Income Requirement, the Applicant presents a series of calculations to demonstrate that she earned over $5,000 in income. She relies on the Invoices and bank deposit slips in the Respondent’s record and acknowledges that certain payments were received in cash. The Applicant cites to the CRA’s CRB guidelines, as well as Sjogren v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 951 at para 20 [Sjogren], and Yousof v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 349 at paras 23-25, 32, to argue that her documentation sufficiently proves her income.
[47] At the hearing, the Applicant contended that the CRA’s instructions were unclear on whether income should be calculated as net or gross. She clarified that she worked with students from Pakistan and received cash payments while in Pakistan but did not obtain receipts. When asked why she did not deliver proof of payment to the CRA, she stated that she had simply overlooked obtaining documentation for those payments.
[48] In the Decisions and accompanying CRA notepad entries, the Officer provided three independent grounds for refusing the CRCB claim. Each ground was determinative of the outcome. One of such grounds was that the Applicant did not meet the Minimum Income Requirement. The Officer also used this criterion to deny the Applicant’s CRB claim. Accordingly, my analysis of this requirement applies to both Benefits.
(1) Minimum Income Requirement
[49] I find that the Officer’s Second Review Report exhibits the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility, and transparency to demonstrate that the Officer reasonably determined that the Applicant did not meet the Minimum Income Requirement.
[50] As outlined above, the Officer first noted that the years 2019 and 2020 were the only 12-month periods that the Applicant had provided evidence for. While the Applicant’s Invoices accounted for the Minimum Income Requirement for the year 2019, the Officer noted that the sum of these Invoices matched the gross business income she had reported in her tax return but not net business income (i.e., net self-employment income). The Applicant’s reported net self-employment income for 2019 was $3,450 – below the threshold requirement.
[51] The Second Review Report and the brief reasons indicated in the Decision letters clearly identify the Officer’s consideration of the net self-employment aspect of the Minimum Income Requirement. Further, the Second Review Report shows that after multiple attempts to contact the Applicant, the Officer received no clarity as to why her 2019 income tax return was inconsistent with her other evidence. In my view, the obvious assumption – based on the evidence before the Officer – was that the Applicant had deducted certain business expenses that decreased her net self-employment. The same applies to any other 12-month Requisite Period preceding her application dates. The record before me indicates that the Officer concluded that the Applicant had not substantiated the Minimum Income Requirement based on a net calculation. I consider this to be reasonable.
[52] It is true that, under the CRA’s guidelines, invoices typically constitute sufficient proof of self-employment income (Sjogren at paras 19-20, 23). However, this does not mean that contradictory evidence can be ignored, particularly given the statutory requirement that applicants must submit their self-employment income net of any business expenses (CRB Act, ss 3(2) 17(2); Lapointe v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 172 at paras 21-22). In this case, the Officer’s insistence that more information was required was logical considering the Applicant’s 2019 income tax return, which noted that the Applicant’s net business income was less than the $5,000 threshold.
[53] The Officer considered the Applicant’s evidence of her income for the years 2020 and 2021. The Officer observed that the Applicant did not report any self-employment income for 2020. While she submitted two invoices for that year, the total amount fell below the $5,000 threshold. For 2021, the Applicant reported $6,900 in net-self-employment income, which would meet the Minimum Income Requirement. However, she provided no supporting documentation – and had made no submissions – to verify these amounts. Income tax returns alone are insufficient proof of the Minimum Income Requirement (Cozak at para 23).
[54] The Officer attempted to contact the Applicant for clarification on this issue. However, after receiving no response, the Officer rejected the Applicant’s 2020 and 2021 income evidence accordingly. As the Officer stated: “[w]ithout further discussion with [the Applicant], I am unable to determine if [the Applicant] may have had other unreported income in 2020 or 2021 that could be counted toward meeting income Threshold needed to received benefits, and to ask for supporting docs for the income reported in 2021.”
[55] The reasonableness of the Minimum Income Requirement determination alone is sufficient to uphold the Decisions, since to qualify for the CRB and the CRCB, applicants must satisfy every criterion under sections 3 and 17 of the CRB Act, respectively. However, as the Applicant is a self-represented litigant, I will briefly address the Officer’s other findings.
(2) Caregiver Requirements
[56] As noted, compassion is not a statutory criterion for receiving the Benefits.
[57] Admittedly, the Officer’s additional grounds for refusing the Applicant’s CRCB claim – taken in isolation – are less clear than those offered for the Minimum Income Requirement. However, the essence of paragraph 17(1)(f) of the CRB Act is that “an applicant must have been unable to work at least 50% of their scheduled work week because they were caring for a family member who is a child under 12-years-old or in need of supervised care”
(Levesque v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 997 at para 17). When viewed in light of the Applicant’s evidence, I find that the Officer’s notes reasonably explain why the Applicant did not meet paragraph 17(1)(f).
[58] First, the Officer found that the Applicant was not employed or self-employed before applying for the CRCB. This determination reasonably reflects the Work Reduction Requirement. The Applicant must have been working to experience a reduction in work hours (i.e., she must have been unable to work for at least 50% of her usual time).
[59] The Applicant submitted detailed evidence showing that she was responsible for caring for her father-in-law after he was denied external care. However, in the context of paragraph 17(1)(f), the Officer’s concern appears to be that any decrease in the Applicant’s work hours was not because of her caregiving duties. Consequently, the Applicant did not meet the requirements in paragraph 17(1)(f). She may have been able to clarify this issue when contacted, but she did not respond. As a result, the Officer had to decide based solely on the submitted evidence.
[60] The evidence substantiating the Applicant’s employment or self-employment was in respect to her Work Provider (as defined above), for whom she provided career counselling services as an independent contractor. The letter outlining her terminated contract states that she stopped working in March 2020 for reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on the Work Provider’s business. The Applicant has not provided evidence that she stopped working because she had to care for her husband or father-in-law.
[61] The Applicant lacks compelling evidence that she resumed work before applying for the CRCB. The record indicates that she first applied for the CRCB on November 5, 2020. However, her termination letter from the Work Provider is dated December 22, 2022, and makes no mention of the Applicant recommencing work after March 2020. This, combined with her lack of reported self-employment income in 2020, undermines the adequacy of her November 2020 Invoices as proof of employment or self-employment immediately before applying for the CRCB.
VIII. Conclusion
[62] It is possible that the Applicant had a compelling explanation that could have persuaded the Officer to decide in her favour. However, she did not respond to the Officer’s communication requests such that no explanation was provided. Considering the evidentiary record before me, I am not satisfied that the Decisions were unreasonable.
[63] Accordingly, I dismiss this Application. The Applicant was not denied procedural fairness, nor were the Decisions unreasonable.
IX. Costs
[64] No costs are awarded.
JUDGMENT in T-905-23
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
The Application is dismissed.
No costs are awarded.
"Glennys L. McVeigh"
Email this Content