Date: 20260708

Docket: T-4622-25

Citation: 2026 FC 920

Ottawa, Ontario, July 8, 2026

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Southcott

BETWEEN:

WANG ZHAN

Applicant

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

REASONS AND JUDGMENT

I. Overview

[1] This decision addresses an application for judicial review of a decision by a Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] officer [the Officer] dated October 15, 2025 [the Decision], related to the Applicant’s eligibility for the Canada Recovery Benefit [the CRB] and the Canada Emergency Response Benefit [the CERB]. The Officer found the Applicant ineligible for the CRB and CERB for certain periods for which she had previously applied and received payments.

[2] As explained in further detail below, this application for judicial review is dismissed, because the Decision is reasonable and the process leading to the making of the Decision was procedurally fair.

II. Background

[3] The CRB and CERB that are the subject of the Decision under review formed part of the Canadian government’s suite of benefits provided in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the CRA released CRB and CERB payments on an attestation basis. However, an applicant’s eligibility for these benefits was subject to potential verification by the CRA.

[4] The Applicant applied for, and received, the CERB for periods (described, in relation to the CERB, as periods 1 to 7) from March 15, 2020, to August 30, 2020, in an amount totaling $14,000. The Applicant also applied for, and received, the CRB for periods (described, in relation to the CRB, as periods 1 to 21) from September 27, 2020, to July 4, 2021, in an amount totaling $21,000. The CRA subsequently elected to verify the Applicant’s eligibility for both the CERB and the CRB.

[5] As explained in greater detail later in these Reasons, the principal issue under review by CRA, in relation to the Applicant’s eligibility for both the CERB and the CRB, was whether the Applicant’s income during each of the relevant periods exceeded the level beyond which an applicant was ineligible for benefits.

[6] By letter dated May 9, 2024, the CRA notified the Applicant that her CERB and CRB eligibility was being reviewed, explained the eligibility criteria, and identified categories of documentation required to support her eligibility. On May 29, 2024, the Applicant provided submissions to the CRA, accompanied by supporting documents.

[7] Following unsuccessful efforts by CRA’s first reviewer to contact the Applicant by telephone on August 22, 2024, and October 4, 2024, leaving voicemail messages that were not returned, the CRA issued a letter dated October 18, 2024 [the First Review Decision], informing the Applicant of the decision that she was not eligible for benefits in any of the relevant periods, in relation to the CERB or the CRB, because:

1. in relation to the CERB: (i) the Applicant incurred more than $1000 of employment or self-employment income during the applicable payment period; (ii) the Applicant did not stop working or have her hours reduced for reasons related to COVID-19; and
2. in relation to the CRB, the Applicant did not have a 50% reduction in her average weekly income compared to the previous year due to COVID-19.

[8] On November 15, 2024, the Applicant provided to the CRA submissions requesting a second review of her eligibility, accompanied by new documents. These submissions included analyses prepared for the Applicant by a Chartered Professional Accountant [CPA] that she retained [the CPA Analyses].

[9] The second review was assigned to the Officer, who attempted to contact the Applicant by telephone on August 12, 2025, and left a voicemail message requesting that she return the call by August 26, 2025. This message advised that, in the absence of response by that date, the final review decision would be made based on the information on file.

[10] On September 19, 2025, the Officer made a second attempt to contact the Applicant by telephone and left a voicemail message requesting that she respond by September 22, 2025. On September 24, 2025, the Officer made a third attempt to contact the Applicant. The Applicant declined to proceed with the call.

[11] The Officer then proceeded to render the Decision that is the subject of this application for judicial review.

III. Decision under Review

[12] The Officer conveyed the Decision in a letter dated October 15, 2025 [Decision Letter], which stated the Officer’s determination that:

1. in relation to the CERB, the Applicant was eligible for periods 2 to 6, but she was not eligible for periods 1 and 7; and
2. in relation to the CRB, the Applicant was eligible for periods 8 to 10 and 15 to 20, but she was not eligible for periods 1 to 7, 11 to 14, and 21.

[13] For those periods for which the Applicant was not eligible for benefits, the Decision Letter articulated bases for ineligibility materially consistent with those underlying the First Review Decision as explained earlier in these Reasons.

[14] The Certified Tribunal Record [CTR], produced in this application and incorporated into the Respondent’s Application Record, includes the Officer’s notes, which also assist to inform an understanding of the reasons for the Decision under review.

IV. Legislative Framework

[15] Relevant provisions of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act, SC 2020, c 5, s 8 [CERB Act] are as follows:

[16] Section 1 of the Income Support Payment (Excluded Nominal Income) Regulations, SOR/2020-90 [the Regulations], made under the CERB Act, provides as follows:

[17] Relevant provisions of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020, c 12, s 2 [CRB Act] are as follows:

V. Issues and Standard of Review

[18] Based on the parties’ written and oral submissions, I would articulate the issues for the Court’s determination as follows:

1. Should the Court consider new evidence, included in the Applicant’s Application Record, that was not before the Officer when the Decision was made?
2. Is the Decision reasonable?
3. Was the Applicant denied procedural fairness in relation to the Decision?

[19] The parties agree that the reasonableness standard of review, as informed by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov], applies to the Court’s review of the merits of the Decision. The burden is on the party challenging the decision to show that it is unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100).

[20] A standard of correctness, or akin to correctness, applies to the Court’s review of procedural fairness (Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FCA 196 at para 35). Put otherwise, the Court’s role is to assess whether, taking into account all relevant circumstances, the process in which the CRA engaged with the Applicant was fair.

[21] As a further preliminary point, the Respondent’s written representations raise the question whether this application is challenging two different decisions (one in relation to the Applicant’s CERB eligibility and the other in relation to her CRB eligibility), for which the Applicant would require leave under Rule 302 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106. The Respondent does not object to the Court addressing both decisions in this application, submitting that this would be in the interests of justice, given that both were made on the same day, by the same Officer, and based on similar reasons.

[22] Indeed, the record before the Court indicates not only that the Officer’s determination with respect to the Applicant’s CERB and CRB eligibility was conveyed to the Applicant in the same Decision Letter, but that the Officer’s analyses in relation to both categories of benefits is contained in the same notes in the CTR. Regardless of whether the Officer’s determination represents one decision or two, I agree with the Respondent’s position that it is in the interests of justice that the Court address the entirety of the Decision in this application.

VI. Analysis

A. Should the Court consider new evidence, included in the Applicant’s Application Record, that was not before the Officer when the Decision was made?

[23] The Respondent argues that paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 22 of the Applicant’s affidavit and exhibits B and D thereto [together, the Disputed Evidence] are not admissible evidence in this application, because they represent evidence (upon which the Applicant seeks to rely to challenge the reasonableness of the Decision) that was not before the Officer when making the Decision. The Disputed Evidence relates to notices and statements that CRA issued to the Applicant after the Decision was made.

[24] As a general rule, the evidentiary record before a court on judicial review is restricted to that which was before the administrative decision-maker whose decision is under review (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 [Access Copyright] at para 19). As explained in Access Copyright, there are exceptions to this rule. However, the Applicant has not identified a basis to invoke any of those exceptions in support of the admission of the Disputed Evidence.

[25] I agree with the Respondent that the Disputed Evidence is inadmissible and will not take that evidence into account in adjudicating this application.

B. Is the Decision reasonable?

[26] In support of her principal position that the Decision is not reasonable, the Applicant argues that the Decision is not intelligible and transparent, as required by the principles identified in Vavilov. She asserts that the Decision does not set out a period-by-period reconciliation showing which payments were found to be ineligible, how applicable income thresholds were applied, or how the final repayment figure was computed. The Applicant also challenges the reasonableness of the Decision on the basis that the Officer failed to engage with the CPA Analyses, which the Applicant argues were among her principal submissions in connection with the second review of her eligibility.

(1) Intelligibility of the Decision

[27] The Decision Letter itself expresses the Officer’s conclusions as to the Applicant’s eligibility but does not set out any detailed analyses in support of those conclusions. However, the Officer’s notes also assist to inform an understanding of the reasons for the Decision under review (Crook v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 1670 at para 14; Aryan v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 139 at para 22). These notes culminate with two pages of analyses dated October 9, 2025, which set out the amounts that the Officer identified that the Applicant earned for each of the relevant CERB and CRB periods, along with period totals where applicable. These notes also identify the periods for which the Officer concluded the Applicant was ineligible.

[28] Other portions of the Officer’s notes identify the particular employment that was the source of the Applicant’s income in each period. At the hearing of this application, the Respondent also identified for the Court examples of the source documentation, such as Statements of Earnings and Records of Employment that the Applicant had submitted to CRA, which supports the income figures in the Officer’s notes.

[29] The Officer’s conclusions, as to the periods for which the Applicant was ineligible for benefits, appear to be consistent with the thresholds prescribed by the relevant legislation for the two categories of benefits. For the CERB, the threshold is straightforward, being the $1000 limit prescribed by the Regulations, and the Officer found the Applicant ineligible for each of the CERB periods in which her income exceeded that threshold.

[30] The identification of the threshold for the CRB is more complex, representing 50% of the Applicant’s income in certain previous 12-month periods and therefore requiring calculations based on the income demonstrated by the Applicant’s documents. However, again, the Officer’s notes demonstrate the performance of those calculations and their application in the Officer’s eligibility determinations.

[31] At the hearing of this application, the Respondent’s submissions addressed these aspects of the record before the Court in considerable detail. The Applicant did not challenge these submissions, other than to argue that, if it is necessary to piece together the necessary calculations from various aspects of the record, then the Decision is not transparent and intelligible. I disagree with the Applicant’s position. As the basis for the Officer’s conclusions as to the Applicant’s eligibility for each relevant benefits period is readily apparent from the record before the Court, this aspect of the Decision easily withstands reasonableness review on the Vavilov standard.

(2) CPA Analyses

[32] The Applicant accurately submits that neither the Decision Letter nor the Officer’s notes expressly engage with the CPA Analyses that the Applicant submitted to CRA in support of her request for a second review of her CERB and CRB eligibility. The Respondent argues that the Decision is based on analyses of the source documentation submitted by the Applicant and that the Officer was not required to expressly engage with the CPA Analyses, which represents merely an accountant’s opinion, in order to render a reasonable decision.

[33] It is trite law that an administrative decision-maker is presumed to have considered all the evidence before it, notwithstanding that some evidence may not be expressly referenced in the decision-maker’s analysis or resulting conclusions. However, this presumption can be rebutted if the evidence that is not expressly mentioned is sufficiently inconsistent with those analyses or conclusions (Cepeda-Gutierrez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 8667 (FC), [1999] 1 FC 52 [Cepeda-Gutierrez] at para 17).

[34] I am conscious that, in conducting reasonableness review, it is not the Court’s role to substitute reasoning that is not apparent from the administrative decision and the record that was before the decision-maker. However, to apply the principles explained in Cepeda-Gutierrez, it is appropriate for the Court to consider the CPA Analyses to assess whether the Court should infer that the Officer ignored or overlooked that documentation.

[35] The Applicant has not advanced any detailed submissions in support of the accuracy of the calculations in the CPA Analyses. Rather, some of the discrepancies between the CPA Analyses, identifying ineligible payments that the Applicant was required to return, and the Officer’s analyses underlying the Decision are readily apparent. By way of example, in relation to the CRB, the CPA appears to have employed a figure of $900 as the “ineligible benefit amount” for each of the two-week CRB periods in which the CPA concluded that the Applicant was ineligible for benefits. In other words, for each period, the CPA concluded that the Applicant was required to return a benefits payment in the amount of $900.

[36] It is not readily apparent how the CPA adopted the $900 figure. However, the Officer employed a benefits figure of $1000 for each of the two-week CRB periods, and this figure is supported by CRA’s records that were before the Officer. Consistent with the Respondent’s position, the Officer’s calculations are supported by the source documentation and, employing the principles explained in Cepeda-Gutierrez, there is no basis for the Court to conclude that the Officer was required to expressly engage with the CPA’s unsupported figures in order for the Decision to be reasonable.

C. Was the Applicant denied procedural fairness in relation to the Decision?

[37] The Applicant correctly notes that principles of procedural fairness require that an affected individual be given a meaningful opportunity to understand the case against them and to respond to it. She argues that she was deprived of requisite procedural fairness in that she was not apprised of the Officer’s particular concerns related to her eligibility and afforded an opportunity to address those concerns. The Applicant takes the position that, in the absence of disclosure of the particular accounting assumptions, income allocations applied, and calculations performed, she was deprived of an opportunity to meaningfully participate in the review of her eligibility.

[38] To the extent the Applicant is arguing that procedural fairness required the Officer to provide her with visibility on the intended conclusions as to her eligibility along with supporting calculations, and then afford her an opportunity to respond thereto, I find no merit to the Applicant’s position. While the Applicant was entitled to an understanding of the case she had to meet, CRA’s correspondence (including its initial May 9, 2024 letter that notified the Applicant that her CERB and CRB eligibility was being reviewed) provided such an explanation.

[39] Moreover, the Applicant has not identified any additional information or documentation that she might have submitted to CRA with the benefit of additional information as to the Officer’s concerns about her eligibility. The Decision as to the periods in which she was ineligible for benefits turned on the documentation that she did provide, related to her income, rather than any shortcomings in the Applicant’s documentation.

[40] I find no breach of procedural fairness leading to the Decision.

VII. Costs

[41] The Respondent requests an award of costs, in the event of its success in this application, and proposes a lump-sum quantification of $500. The Applicant requests that, in the event the Respondent succeeds, she not be held liable for costs.

[42] Consistent with authorities cited by the Respondent (Lussier v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 935 at para 25; Loeb v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1463 at para 28; Peiris v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 331 at para 51), I consider an award of costs in favour of the Respondent to be appropriate and will fix those costs in the lump-sum all-inclusive amount of $500, which I note represents an amount less than would be imposed under the applicable Tariff.

JUDGMENT IN T-4622-25

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. This application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. The Applicant shall pay the Respondent costs in the all-inclusive lump-sum amount of $500.

"Richard F. Southcott"

 

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:	T-4622-25
STYLE OF CAUSE:	WANG ZHAN v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING:	TORONTO, ONtario
DATE OF HEARING:	June 24, 2026
JUDGMENT AND REASONS:	SOUTHCOTT J.
DATED:	july 8, 2026

APPEARANCES:

Wang Zhan	For The Applicant (ON THEIR OWN BEHALF)
David Heppenstall	For The Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario

For The Respondent