|
Date: 20251010 |
|
Docket: T-978-23 |
|
Citation: 2025 FC 1689 |
|
Ottawa, Ontario, October 10, 2025 |
|
PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Thorne |
|
BETWEEN: |
|
RAHEEL MUNIR |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Mr. Munir, seeks judicial review of three Canada Revenue Agency [CRA
] decisions, dated April 5, 2023, which had found him ineligible for COVID-19 benefits that he had previously received under the Canada Emergency Recovery Benefit [CERB
], the Canada Recovery Benefit [CRB]
and the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit [CWLB
].
[2] The CRA determined that the Applicant was not eligible for any of those benefits because he had not satisfied the legislated eligibility requirement of having earned at least $5,000 before taxes of employment or net self-employment income in 2019, 2020, 2021, or in the 12 months prior to applying for those benefits. The CRA specifically found that the Applicant had been unable to validate that his employment or self-employment income during the periods in question satisfied this income threshold. In relation to the CWLB, the CRA also essentially found that Mr. Munir was not eligible for this benefit because, during the periods he had claimed the CWLB, the region where he lived, worked or provided services was not designated as a COVID-19 lockdown region. The consequence of these decisions was that the Applicant is required to repay the amounts that he had received in benefits.
[3] For the reasons that follow, this application is dismissed. I find the Applicant has not established that the decisions are unreasonable or procedurally unfair.
II. Background
[4] The Applicant applied for and received COVID-19 financial support benefits provided by the Canadian government during the global pandemic. In particular, he applied for and received the:
-
CERB for the period March 15, 2020 to September 26, 2020;
-
CRB for the periods from September 27, 2020 to November 21, 2020; January 3, 2021 to February 27, 2021 and August 29, 2021 to October 23, 2021; and
-
CWLB for the period from December 19, 2021 to January 1, 2022.
[5] Upon request by the CRA to validate the receipt of these benefits, the Applicant ultimately submitted a 2020 Notice of Assessment, self-employment invoices from early 2020, a 2019 Notice of Assessment, and a 2019 T4 screenshot of the statement of remuneration paid. The CRA officer he was dealing with also helped him to obtain a copy of the 2019 T4, but as they were “unable to confirm the veracity of [the] documentation”
, the officer also asked the Applicant, on September 22, 2022, to provide bank statements with amounts received from January to March 2020 that would show the deposits from his employment.
A. First Review Decisions
[6] On initial review of Mr. Munir’s eligibility, the CRA subsequently determined that he was ineligible for each of the three benefits because he did not satisfy the income eligibility threshold of having earned at least $5,000 of employment or net self-employment income in 2019, 2020, 2021 or in the 12 months prior to the date of his first applications for the benefits. Mr. Munir had not provided the requested bank statements prior to these decisions.
[7] Mr. Munir was notified of the decisions by letters dated October 27, 2022. The letters also informed him that he could request a second review of his eligibility for each of the benefits.
B. Second Review Decisions
[8] In a letter dated November 6, 2022 Mr. Munir requested a second review of his eligibility for each of the benefits. In this letter, he stated that with respect to the requested bank statements, “[m]y bank has advised me that because they are from two years ago, it will take approximately 6 weeks for me to receive these printed statements via regular mail.”
[9] The CRA began the second review process on February 7, 2023 and assigned one of its officers as the Second Reviewer [the “Officer”
]. In the Officer’s February 7, 2023 T1Case case specific notepad entry file, the Officer observed that the Applicant’s reported net self-employment income for 2019 was $-1,190 and for 2020 was $-1,651. The notes recorded that for 2021, the Applicant’s net self-employment income was $9,616, and acknowledged the Applicant’s November 6, 2022 letter had stated that “he requested bank statements to [sic] his bank and they told him it should take 6 weeks to received [sic] them.”
On February 15, 2023, the Applicant also provided an Excel spreadsheet recording total earnings of $21,000 from a construction company he had worked for in 2019. The Officer spoke with the Applicant on February 17, 2023, and recorded the following entry in respect of that call:
*When asked what was the name of the construction company TP had worked for in 2019, TP said he does not remember, it must have been Renovation something. When asked how many employee [sic] were working with him, he said there was one or two people with him. When asked why the company only produced one T4 in 2019 for him, but not for the other employees that were working with him, TP said he does not know, the company must have [been] operating under a different name. When asked why would the company operate under a different name for him and a different one for the other employee, TP said he does not know.
[10] In the February 17, 2023 call, the Officer further asked the Applicant to provide his bank statement for 2021 and the receipts for the same year, and the Officer’s notes record that “[h]e said he would need 4 to 6 weeks to provide that.”
[11] In a series of letters dated April 5, 2023, Mr. Munir was notified of the Second Review Decisions [the “Decisions”
], which found that he was not eligible for the CERB, CRB and CWLB benefits. The bank statements were not provided to the CRA prior to these decisions.
[12] These Decisions underlay this application for judicial review, which the Applicant brought on May 3, 2023. The Applicant alleges that the Decisions were unreasonable and procedurally unfair.
III. Preliminary Issues
A. Style of Cause
[13] Mr. Munir named the “CRA”
as the Respondent in the Notice of Application for this matter.
[14] At the request of the Attorney General, without objection from the Applicant, and in accordance with Rule 303(2) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 [the “Rules
”
], the title of these proceedings shall be amended to name the Attorney General of Canada as the Respondent in this application.
B. Exception to Rule 302 of the Federal Courts Rules
[15] In this matter, Mr. Munir seeks judicial review of all three of his COVID-19 benefit decisions by way of a single Notice of Application. Per Rule 302 of the Rules, an application for judicial review shall generally be limited to a single decision or order, unless the Court orders otherwise. As an unrepresented party, Mr. Munir understandably did not know this was the case. However, the Respondent submits that in this matter an exception to Rule 302 should be allowed and ordered by the Court to permit judicial review of all three decisions.
[16] This Court has recognized that closely linked decisions, arising under the same or closely related statutes and reached by the same decision maker, may be treated as a single decision: Vincent v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 803 at para 9; Rehman v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1534 at paras 15–17; James v Canada (Attorney General) 2024 FC 730 at paras 16–17. Factors to consider in such cases include whether the decisions are closely connected; whether there are similarities or differences in the fact situations including the type of relief sought; the legal issues raised; the basis of the decisions; the decision making bodies involved; and, based on the similarities and differences, whether separate reviews would be a waste of time and effort: Potdar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 842.
[17] In this matter, given that the three decisions were made by the same decision maker, on the basis of the same record, under two related statutes, and on the same legal basis, I am satisfied that the decisions are appropriately considered together as part of this application: Rehman v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1534 at para 17. Pursuant to Rule 3 of the Rules, this is the most just, expeditious, and least expensive way to proceed. I therefore exercise my discretion to allow the Applicant to bring this application in respect of the three decisions.
C. New Evidence
[18] As part of this application, Mr. Munir has attached a series of documents which had not previously been presented to the CRA during his reviews including: bank statements from February 13, 2020 to June 23, 2020, August 6, 2020 to August 24, 2020, and October 2, 2020 to October 19, 2020, and a letter from his sister. Accordingly, the Respondent argues that these documents are inadmissible in this proceeding.
[19] I agree. It is trite law that the record before this Court on judicial review is generally restricted to the evidentiary record that was before the administrative decision maker. Evidence that goes to the merits of the matter and that was not before the decision maker is generally not admissible on judicial review: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 at paras 19–20; Shhadi v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 1580 at para 43; Bolduc v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1497 at para 48.
[20] In the specific context of a judicial review of CRA decisions under similar COVID-19 benefit programs, this Court has ruled numerous times that it is not to consider additional documents that were not previously submitted to the CRA, since it is not the role of this Court to make a fresh decisions on eligibility: Alhusaini v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 2033 at para 19; Lussier v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 935 at para 2; Latourell v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 44 at paras 19-20.
[21] The impugned documents go directly to the merits of this matter and were not part of the evidentiary record before the decision maker. These documents also do not qualify under any of the exceptions to the above-noted principle of admissibility. I find those documents to be inadmissible and cannot consider them.
IV. Issues and Standard of Review
[22] The issues at play in this matter are whether the Officer’s Decisions are reasonable and were rendered in a procedurally fair manner.
[23] The standard of review of the merits of a decision is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 10, 25 [Vavilov]. In undertaking reasonableness review, the Court must assess whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness, namely justification, transparency and intelligibility: Vavilov at para 99. When reviewing a decision on this standard, “a court must consider the outcome of the administrative decision in light of its underlying rationale in order to ensure that the decision as a whole is transparent, intelligible and justified”
: Vavilov at para 15. Ultimately, a reasonable decision is one which is “based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law
”
: Vavilov at para 85. Further, an applicant bears the onus of demonstrating that the challenged decision was unreasonable: Vavilov at para 100.
[24] Issues of procedural fairness, however, are reviewed on a correctness standard, or at least a standard akin to correctness: Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at paras 54 – 56 [Canadian Pacific Railway Company]; Ramanathan v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1029 at para 41 [Ramanathan]. This requires the Court to analyze whether the procedure followed was fair, having regard to all the circumstances: Kawasaki v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 936 at para 13 citing Canadian Pacific Railway at para 54.
V. Analysis
A. Relevant Statutory Provisions
[25] The Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act, SC 2020, c 5, s 8 [CERB Act] is the enabling legislation of the CERB. The Canada Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020, c 12 s 2 [CRB Act] is the enabling legislation of the CRB. The Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit Act, SC 2021, c 26 s 5 [CWLB Act] is the enabling legislation of the CWLB. All of these pieces of legislation contain identical minimum income eligibility requirements that require an applicant must have earned a net income of at least $5,000 from employment, self-employment. This could include benefits under the Employment Insurance Act, SC 1996, c 23, allowances, money, or other benefits paid to under a provincial plan because of pregnancy or care of new-born children or children placed with them for the purpose of adoption, and any other source of income that is prescribed by regulation. The CWLB Act further requires that an applicant for that benefit must also prove that their inability to work was not for reasons unrelated to a designated COVID-19 lockdown in their region.
B. The Decisions were not procedurally unfair
[26] In his materials and oral submissions, the Applicant asserts that he was not given enough time by the deciding Officer to submit the requested bank statements. He states that when he was asked for the bank statements, likely in September 2022, he could not retrieve them online as the online records did not extend that far back into his account history, and the bank informed him they would send the statements to him via mail, if requested. The Applicant asserts that though he did this, the Officer issued the Decisions before he had received those records.
[27] The Applicant argues that the Decisions were procedurally unfair because he was not given a fair opportunity to submit the requested documents. He states that CRA failed to provide him with a “clear deadline”
for submission of his bank statements and rendered their decision “without waiting for the requested documents.”
He also faults the CRA because it “did not inquire why the bank statements were delayed.”
The Applicant also submits that the CRA failed to take any steps to verify his employment, such as by directly contacting the employer, and requesting an employment verification letter. He submits that he had a legitimate expectation of what would constitute sufficient proof to establish his income. He asserts that the CRA’s refusal to accept his T4 slips and pay stubs alone, and rather to also require that he provide the bank statements, was “inconsistent with its own policies.”
Finally, he states that “[t]he CRA did not provide justification for treating the Applicant’s submissions differently from other similar applications.”
[28] At the hearing, the Applicant stated that he could not recall for certain whether he had told the Officer that he had encountered a delay in receiving the bank statements, or if he had requested more time to get the records, but that he thought that he might have. He stated that he had told the Officer that it would take four to six weeks for him to receive the bank statements. The Applicant conceded that the Officer’s decision was issued more than six weeks after he had last told the Officer this.
[29] For its part, the Respondent submits that the Applicant was clearly informed of the case he needed to meet, and what documents he needed to provide as part of the Second Review. Counsel noted that the Applicant knew that he was to submit his bank statements for months before the Decisions were issued, and that the Officer had specifically relied upon the timeline provided by the Applicant himself before eventually rendering the Decisions. Counsel noted that the evidence and records indicated the following timeline:
-
September 22, 2022: By phone call, the Officer in the initial review advised the Applicant that he was required to send bank statements to verify his employment in 2019.
-
November 6, 2022: After the initial decisions were rendered on October 27, 2022, the Applicant sent a letter requesting a second review of his various benefit eligibilities. In this letter, he acknowledged that he knew that he had to provide the bank statements. This letter also specifically stated that he had already requested that information from his bank, which had advised him that it would take six weeks for him to receive those documents by regular mail.
-
February 7, 2023: In a phone call, the Applicant was advised that his second reviews would be undertaken. During this call, when the Officer asked him to provide records to validate the e-transfers of his employment pay, the Applicant told the new Officer that he would need six weeks to receive and provide his 2019 bank statements.
-
February 17, 2023: There was another call between the Applicant and the Officer, as the Officer returned the Applicant’s call from the day before. In this call, the Officer asked the Applicant for his 2021 bank statements, and was told that the Applicant would need four to six weeks to obtain and provide these documents.
-
March 31, 2023: The Officer waited six weeks from February 17, 2023 and then found the Applicant ineligible because he did not provide the requested documents, and his employment income could not be validated.
-
April 5, 2023: The Decisions were issued.
[30] The Respondent argues that the Applicant had a meaningful opportunity to respond and that he had represented that he would require four to six weeks to provide the requested bank statements. Counsel noted that the evidence did not indicate that the Applicant alerted the Officer to any delay in receiving the documents or that he had requested additional time to provide the information. Counsel also noted that it was only during this judicial review that the Applicant has now stated that perhaps he did tell the Officer that there had been a delay, though the Applicant says he is uncertain of this, in any event.
[31] The Respondent notes that the procedural fairness obligations of the CRA in determining CERB, CRB or CWLB eligibility are on the low end of the spectrum: Cozak v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1571 at para 17 [Cozak] citing Ramanathan at para 46. The Respondent contends that, given this, the Officer was not required to contact the Applicant’s employer to secure the needed information, but that this was the responsibility of the Applicant, and that there was no violation of procedural fairness in making the Decisions.
[32] While I am extremely sympathetic to the Applicant, I cannot find that the Officer’s Decisions were rendered in a procedurally unfair manner. As the Respondent has noted, the Applicant was advised of the need to provide the bank statements as far back as September 22, 2022. Indeed, in his November 6, 2022 letter requesting a second review of his decisions, the Applicant not only acknowledged this, but also stated that he had already approached his bank to request these documents. The Applicant was also advised twice more, on February 7, 2023 and February 17, 2023, of the necessity of providing the documents, and responded each time by indicating that he required four to six weeks to obtain those records. The Respondent is also correct that there was no evidence that the Applicant had ever approached the Officer, even in the later calls, to indicate that there had been a delay or that he required more time to provide the records.
[33] I cannot find that the CRA failed to provide the Applicant with a clear deadline for the submission of the bank statements. It simply relied upon the timeline provided by the Applicant, as opposed to setting its own differing deadline, and did not render the decision until well past the timeline repeatedly indicated by the Applicant. I also do not find that there was procedural unfairness in the Officer relying on the Applicant to provide the records he had indicated were available, rather than instead taking the initiative to contact the Applicant’s employer to itself secure those documents. Nor was the Officer at fault for not inquiring why the bank statements were delayed. It appears they asked the Applicant for the records multiple times, and the Applicant did not indicate to the Officer that there was any such delay or problem in securing the information. Nor had he otherwise updated the CRA with respect to the timeline for the provision of the information. It certainly cannot be said that the Applicant was not made aware of what he was required to provide, or not given a reasonable opportunity to be able to do so. This is particularly so given that the Officer relied upon the Applicant’s own timeline as to when he would be able submit that information, and had also been told on multiple occasions by the Applicant that the information would be forthcoming in four to six weeks.
[34] The Respondent is correct that the Court has applied a relatively low level of procedural fairness in the assessment of COVID-19 benefit eligibility decisions. (Zhang v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 910 at para 27 citing Moncada v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 117 at para 32; Cozak at para 17; Ramanathan v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1029 at para 46) Given that, and all of the circumstances in this matter, I do not find the Decisions to be procedurally unfair.
[35] I also do not find the Decisions unreasonable. As previously noted, the burden of establishing this rests upon the Applicant. In that regard, the Court must be satisfied “that there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, transparency and intelligibility”
: Vavilov at para 100. Based upon my review of the record, as well as the submissions of the Applicant and the Respondent, I am not satisfied that this burden has been met.
[36] In his materials and oral submissions, the Applicant essentially states that the Decisions were unreasonable because they failed to adequately consider all of the evidence, as they were made without considering his bank statements. He also states that even if he had provided the bank statements, this would not have definitively proven his income because he was sometimes paid in cash. He asserts that he provided sufficient proof of his employment and employment income, even without the bank statements, and that it was not reasonable for the Officer to have required those statements, rather than just relying solely on his 2019 T4 and invoices.
[37] The Respondent submits that based on the evidence provided by the Applicant, it was reasonable for the Officer to have concerns about the Applicant’s alleged employment income. The Respondent notes that:
The Officer flagged that the Applicant’s 2018 to 2020 tax returns were not filed until November 17, 2021 and that his 2021 tax return was not filed until August 5, 2022, with the point being that all of these records were filed only after he had applied for and received the Covid benefits.
The Officer had also noted that these tax filings were the only time the Applicant had ever filed tax returns for employment income, as previously his tax returns had always been for self-employment income.
The Officer had also discovered that the Applicant’s 2019 T4 was produced by a company that had never issued any other T4s to any other employee, and that the Applicant’s 2019 T4 was first processed in February 2022.
[38] They argue that the evidence indicated that the Applicant had no explanation for any of these issues when asked about them by the Officer, and that he had also been unable to remember the name of the employer when asked. The Respondent argues that based on these issues, it was reasonable for the Officer to seek further documentation validating the Applicant’s reported employment income. They further argue that given the Applicant’s failure to provide those documents, and thus to validate the claimed 2019 income, it was reasonable for the Officer to render the negative Decisions.
[39] In response, the Applicant explained that he generally had been self-employed and did not have a long-term relationship with the employer, who would contact him to offer eclectic opportunities for work. He stated that he could not speak to the company’s practices with respect to issuing T4s to other employees, and that they had only provided him with one when he had approached them after the Decisions telling them he needed some record of his work with them.
[40] While I am sympathetic to the personal circumstances described by Mr. Munir, I cannot find the Officer’s Decisions relating to his eligibility for the benefits to be unreasonable. On judicial review, the role of the Court is not to reevaluate or reweigh the evidence considered by the decision maker: Vavilov at para 125. It is to consider whether the challenged Decisions exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency, and to intervene only where there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that the rationale of why the decision was made cannot be understood: Vavilov at paras 85-86, 100.
[41] In this case, there is no indication that the Officer did not account for the explanations, documents or submissions provided to them by the Applicant during the review. More importantly, the Officer’s reasoning as to why they felt the additional documents validating the employment income of the Applicant were necessary was clear from their notes, and discussion of the information, given the issues that had been flagged. In addition, the final Decisions represent a clear and straightforward application of the income eligibility requirements of the applicable legislation, in light of the lack of validation of the Applicant’s income.
[42] I cannot find that the Decisions lack the hallmarks of reasonableness. Based on the evidence and financial information that was provided to the CRA during the benefit reviews, it was reasonable for the Officer to conclude that the Applicant had not established that he satisfied the income threshold. The Officer was thus correct that this made him ineligible to claim the benefits under the statutory provisions of those programs. Regardless of whether other reviewers might have considered the circumstances or evidence differently, the Decisions cannot be said to lack internal coherence or a rational chain of analysis. Accordingly, I do not find that they were unreasonable.
VI. Conclusions
[43] For the foregoing reasons, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
[44] In concluding however, I note the following passage from the Decisions under review:
We understand that it may not be possible for you to pay your debt immediately and in full. We're here to help. The CRA offers various solutions tailored to your personal situation.
[45] At the hearing into this matter, the Applicant movingly explained his financial circumstances and the difficulties experienced during the pandemic, as well as indicating the challenges that repaying the benefits will pose. In these circumstances, I would expect the CRA to adhere to the representations contained in the Decisions under review, and to exercise flexibility related to the quantum and/or timing of any repayments.
[46] The Respondent has clarified that they will not be seeking costs in this matter. I agree that an award of costs against the Applicant would not be appropriate, and none will be ordered.
JUDGMENT IN T-978-23
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that
-
The application for judicial review is dismissed without costs.
-
The Applicant is granted leave under Rule 302 of the Federal Courts Rules to allow the three Decisions in question to all be judicially reviewed in this application.
-
The title of proceedings shall be amended to identify the Respondent as the Attorney General of Canada.
|
blank |
"Darren R. Thorne" |
|
blank |
Judge |
Email this Content