Docket: T-2009-22
Citation: 2025 FC 559
Toronto, Ontario, March 26, 2025
PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak
BETWEEN: |
RUBY KONKOL |
Applicant |
and |
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Ruby Konkol [the Applicant], brings this judicial review in connection with a decision [Decision] of the Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] finding him ineligible for the Canada Recovery Benefits [the CRB] that he applied for and received pursuant to section 3 of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, being Part I of the COVID-19 Response Measures Act, SC 2020, c 12 [the CRB Act].
[2] The Applicant has failed to discharge his burden of identifying a reviewable error in the decision under review. Instead, the Applicant asks the Court to disregard the statutory requirements for eligibility and to make its own determination of his eligibility for the CRB and other benefits he applied for. This is not the role of the Court on judicial review. Accordingly, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
II. Facts
[3] The Applicant was a realtor who was taking real estate broker training in 2019 and worked part time as a ski instructor. He applied for and received CRB payments for the 27 two-week periods from September 27, 2020 to October 9, 2021 [the CRB Payments].
A. The First and Second Review
[4] The Applicant was sent a decision letter dated May 19, 2022 [the First Decision] finding that the Applicant was not eligible for the CRB Payments as he had not demonstrated that he had earned at least $5,000 of employment or net self-employment income [the Requisite Income] in 2019, 2020 or in the 12 months prior to his first application [the Relevant Period].
[5] The Applicant requested a second review by letter dated July 18, 2022. As part of his submissions, the Applicant provided copies of his 2019 and 2020 Notice of Assessment, stating that he thought he qualified for the CRB Payments based on these assessments. He emphasized that he had no intention to mislead or misrepresent his financial situation. He advised that he has suffered shock and stress associated with having to repay the CRB Payments and requested relief on compassionate grounds.
[6] The CRA officer assigned as the second reviewer [the Second Reviewer] considered the documents provided by the Applicant as well as his submissions and concluded that the Applicant was not eligible as he had not earned the Requisite Income in the Relevant Period. The Second Reviewer found that the Applicant’s eligible income (as distinct from total earned income) was as follows: (a) $854 for 2019; (b) $607 for 2020; and (c) $367 for 2021.
[7] The Second Reviewer spoke by phone with the Applicant on August 17, 2022. The case notes indicate that the Applicant acknowledged that he did not qualify for the benefits but was asking for leniency as he had applied in good faith. The Second Reviewer advised that he was unable to grant such a request.
[8] The Second Reviewer concluded that the Applicant was ineligible for the CRB Payments and communicated his decision by letter to the Applicant dated September 6, 2022.
III. Preliminary Issue
[9] The Respondent objects to the Applicant’s inclusion of the following evidence in the Application Record that was not before the Second Reviewer: the Applicant’s CRA Statement of Account; a Notice of Redetermination dated September 15, 2022; and documents referencing the Applicant’s application for the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit [collectively, the New Evidence].
[10] It is well established that judicial review is to be conducted based on a review of the evidence that was before the original decision maker (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 at paras 19-20). While there are recognized exceptions to this rule, as the Applicant has not argued nor have I found that the New Evidence relates to any of the recognized exceptions, the New Evidence cannot be considered.
IV. Issues and Standard of Review
[11] The following issues have been raised on this judicial review:
Whether the Decision is unreasonable; and
Whether this Court can grant the relief requested by the Applicant, which is to decide the Applicant’s eligibility to receive the CRB Payments.
[12] The standard of review applicable to the merits of the CRA’s decisions regarding CRB payments is reasonableness (Flock v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 305 at para 15). While this Court’s review is deferential, it is nevertheless a robust review which considers both the outcome and rationale of the decision with an eye to the hallmarks of public power, which require that it be transparent, intelligible and justified (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 12-13, 15 [Vavilov]).
[13] A reasonableness review is not an exercise in re-determining the underlying decision, nor does it allow for a reweighing of the evidence that was before the decision-maker [Vavilov at para. 125].
V. Analysis
A. The Decision is reasonable
[14] The Applicant has argued that the CRA failed to “accurately adjudicate [his] eligibility.”
He argues that the Second Reviewer made an error of fact in failing to find that he meets the eligibility requirements based on his 2019 and 2020 Notices of Assessment, which show his net income to be well above the Requisite Income.
[15] This argument is without merit. The Second Reviewer properly considered the definition of “eligible income”
as defined under section 3 of the CRB Act, which excludes “rental, investment, social assistance, CERB, workers comp or RRSP.”
The Second Reviewer considered and rejected the Applicant’s attempt to rely on his net income, noting that while the Applicant’s Notices of Assessment for 2019 and 2020 showed more than $5,000 in total income, the amount of eligible income in each of those years was less than $5,000. This conclusion was justified based on the constraints of the statutory scheme and I see no basis for finding otherwise, including on the basis of compassionate grounds for which there is no provision in the CRB Act.
B. The Court cannot grant the requested relief
[16] The Applicant also argues that based on the New Evidence and the fact that he qualified for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, the Court should approve the CRB Payments.
[17] This Court is not tasked with deciding the merits of the Applicant’s claim for eligibility for other benefits, nor is it entitled to revisit the Decision by reassessing or reweighing the evidence, nor can it re-determine the Applicant’s case based on the New Evidence (Xin v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 595 at para 77) which, in any event, has been excluded. The question is whether the Decision is reasonable applying the principles in Vavilov. I find that it is. The Decision bears the hallmarks of a reasonable decision as it is justified, transparent and intelligible.
VI. Conclusion
[18] The Applicant has not discharged his burden of identifying a reviewable error; accordingly, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
[19] At the request of the Respondent and pursuant to Rule 303(2) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, the style of cause for this proceeding is amended to reflect the correct respondent, the Attorney General of Canada.
Email this Content