|
Date: 20260729
|
|
Docket: T-4110-25
Citation: 2026 FC 1006
|
|
Toronto, Ontario, July 29, 2026
|
|
PRESENT: Justice Andrew D. Little
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
HUI ZHU
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
[1] In this application for judicial review, the applicant seeks to set aside a second review decision made by Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”
) by letter dated October 6, 2025 (the “Decision”
). The Decision concluded that the applicant was not eligible for Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (“CRCB”
) payments under the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020, c 12, s 2 (the “
CRB Act”
).
[2] The Decision concluded that the applicant was not eligible for three reasons: (a) she was not present in Canada during some of the weekly periods; (b) she did not earn at least $5,000 (before taxes) of employment and/or net self-employment income in 2019, 2020, 2021, or in the 12 months before the date of her application for the CRCB; and (c) the applicant’s scheduled work week was not reduced by at least 50% because she was caring for a family member for reasons related to COVID-19.
[3] The applicant’s position was that she was eligible and the decision should be set aside as unreasonable. Alternatively, she submitted that she was deprived of procedural fairness in the decision making process.
[4] For the reasons that follow, I conclude that CRA’s Decision was reasonable. In my view, CRA followed the legal requirements for eligibility in the CRB Act. In addition, the Decision reasonably assessed and applied the information provided by the applicant and in the CRA’s files. In particular, the key factual circumstances were reasonably assessed under the eligibility requirements: the applicant was not present in Canada for a significant period of time, and her children were not in a daycare or similar facility that was closed because of COVID-19.
[5] I also conclude that the process leading to the Decision complied with procedural fairness.
I. Events leading to the Decision under review
[6] The applicant applied for and received the CRCB for 44 one-week periods:
-
42 weekly periods between September 27, 2020, and July 17, 2021, which the CRA calls periods 1 to 42;
-
The one-week period from December 19 to December 25, 2021 (CRA’s period 65); and
-
The one-week period from January 9 to January 15, 2022 (CRA’s period 68).
[7] CRA began the process of reviewing the applicant’s eligibility for the CRCB by sending the applicant a letter dated November 20, 2024 (the “Initial Contact Letter”
). This letter raised concerns about her eligibility for the CRCB, including her presence in Canada.
[8] The Initial Contact Letter advised that CRA had information that showed that the applicant may have been outside of Canada, for all or part of the time from March 13, 2021, to May 27, 2022. The letter requested information to support her eligibility for the CRCB, that showed her name and the date(s) of her travel outside of Canada. It gave examples of the kinds of documents that could show that she was present in Canada.
[9] The Initial Contact Letter also advised the applicant that in order to qualify for the CRCB, she:
… must have been employed or self-employed on the day before your first application period. In addition, you must have been unable to work at least 50% of your scheduled work week because you were caring for a child under 12 years old or a family member who needed supervised care because they were at home for one of the following reasons:
- their school, daycare, day program, or care facility was closed/unavailable to them due to COVID-19
- their regular care services were unavailable due to COVID-19
- the person under your care was sick with COVID-19 or had symptoms of COVID-19, at risk of serious health complications if they get COVID-19, as advised by a medical professional or self-isolating due to COVID-19.
[10] The Initial Contact Letter described and gave examples of kinds of documents to support eligibility. It requested that the applicant send documents to CRA within 45 days.
[11] On December 29, 2024, and February 23, 2025, in response to CRA’s letter, the applicant provided documents to CRA.
[12] By letter dated March 3, 2025, CRA advised the applicant that it had determined that she was not eligible for the CRCB. CRA’s letter provided three reasons for its decision (which are identified above).
[13] By letter dated March 11, 2025, the applicant requested a second review of her eligibility. She included certain tax forms as additional documentation. The applicant sent two letters requesting updates on April 25 and May 7, 2025.
[14] On September 23, 2025, CRA communicated with the applicant and her husband in a telephone call. The CRA officer asked questions and the applicant provided information related to her eligibility. On that day, after the call, the applicant sent a further letter to CRA arguing her eligibility.
[15] By letter dated October 6, 2025, CRA rendered its second review decision, which is the Decision under review in this proceeding.
II. The Decision
A. Second Review Decision Letter
[16] CRA’s letter dated October 6, 2026, concluded that the applicant was not eligible for CRCB payments for the following reasons:
You were not present in Canada during the period.
You did not earn at least $5,000 (before taxes) of employment and/or net self-employment income in 2019, 2020, 2021, or in the 12 months before the date of your application.
Your scheduled work week was not reduced by at least 50% because you were caring for a family member for reasons related to COVID-19.
B. CRA officer’s notes
[17] The record contains detailed notes made by CRA officers during their review of the applicant’s eligibility for the CRCB.
[18] The Court has held that a CRA officer’s internal notes setting out reasoning for a decision form part of the decision itself: Ahmadi v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FC 784, at para 15; Aung v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FC 523, at para 12.
[19] However, some contents of CRA’s notes describe internal analysis, planning and interactions with benefit recipients including telephone calls to collect eligibility information. These internal notes are better treated as part of the record (Vavilov, at paras 91-97), rather than as forming part of CRA’s decision.
[20] In this case, it is a mix of both.
(1) CRA notes concerning the officer’s decision
[21] Under the heading “DECISION”
, the CRA notes stated that the applicant was not eligible for CRCB periods 1 to 42, 65 and 68.
[22] With respect to presence in Canada, the CRA notes show that the officer found that the applicant was outside Canada for some of the period for which she claimed and received CRCB payments. It is not disputed (and the applicant confirmed at the hearing) that she was not present in Canada from March 13, 2021, to May 27, 2022, which covered periods 24 to 42, 65 and 68. (The applicant advised the Court that she was visiting her mother in China who was very ill.)
[23] The CRA officer’s notes found that the applicant was also ineligible because her scheduled work week was not reduced by at least 50% because she did not have a daycare before COVID and her income was already affected by the children before COVID. During the pandemic, the applicant did not try to find a daycare as it was scarce.
(2) CRA notes of the September 23, 2025, telephone call with the applicant
[24] The CRA notes summarized the telephone call with the applicant on September 23, 2025, in which the applicant’s husband also participated. In my view, these notes mostly form part of the record before the officer.
[25] During the call with the applicant on September 23, 2025, the applicant advised CRA that she had twins and did not go to work. She did not have a daycare or any school for the children. The applicant had them at home all the time and decided not to find a daycare owing to health concerns for one child. During COVID it was not safe for them to go to any daycare. The applicant and her husband decided to keep them at home.
[26] Later in the same call, the CRA notes record that the CRA officer told the applicant’s husband that the applicant was not eligible because the benefit applies when the children’s “institution”
such as their school, daycare, day program, or care facility was closed or unavailable to them due to COVID-19. “In this case, the [applicant] decided to keep them at home.”
This aspect of the call notes discloses some reasoning that led to the Decision.
[27] The CRA officer’s notes also analyze the income requirement for CRCB eligibility. The notes show an analysis and calculations done by the officer. It appears that the officer did not pursue additional clarification of certain documents, because it was apparent that applicant was not eligible because her children were not and had never been in daycare.
III. Admissibility of proposed new evidence on this application for judicial review
[28] The applicant filed an affidavit on this application. She also offered additional evidence at the hearing. The respondent objected to the admissibility of this evidence.
[29] As a general rule on a judicial review application, the evidentiary record before a reviewing court is restricted to the evidentiary record that was before the decision maker when the impugned decision was made: see e.g., Laflamme c Canada (Agence du revenu), 2026 CAF 101, at para 14; Andrews v Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2022 FCA 159, at paras 18-19; Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22, at para 19; Aung, at paras 30-31.
[30] The applicant’s affidavit contained tax information and information about her presence in Canada. It is not admissible, as it goes to the merits of the present application: Andrews, at paras 19-20. However, its admissibility makes no difference to the outcome of this application. The excerpts from the applicant’s T1 tax return (exhibits “A”
and “B”
to the affidavit) were available to the officer in CRA’s records. As confirmed at the hearing, the substantive information about the applicant’s presence in Canada (exhibit “C”
to the affidavit) was before the officer and is not contested.
[31] The additional new evidence offered orally by the applicant at the hearing was information about income she received in 2020 and a payment made to her husband’s mother for caring for the children. As I noted at the hearing, the proposed information is not admissible and indeed, was offered much too late. It concerned the merits of the applicant’s eligibility, which renders it inadmissible on this application, and it did not fall under an exception to the general rule: see Andrews, at paras 19-20; Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, at para 20.
IV. Applicable legislation: CRCB payments under the CRB Act
A. Contents of the relevant provisions
[32] Under the CRB Act, the CRCB was available for weekly periods, during a prescribed period of time, for eligible employees and self-employed workers whose ability to work was reduced by at least 50% due to one of the listed COVID-19-related issues when they would have otherwise been able to work that week: CRB Act, section 17; Aung, at para 25.
[33] The specific requirements for eligibility for CRCB payments are found in section 17 of the CRB Act, which is attached to these reasons as Schedule “A”
.
[34] Under subsection 17(1), a person was eligible for a CRCB for any week falling within the period beginning on September 27, 2020, and ending on May 7, 2022, if certain conditions were met. The conditions were set out in paragraphs (a) to (i) of subsection 17(1). They include residence and presence in Canada, minimum income requirements and that the person have reduced their ability to work because of caregiving responsibilities caused by the pandemic.
[35] For the present judicial review proceeding, the key provisions for the applicant’s eligibility for CRCB payments were paragraphs 17(1)(c) and (f).
[36] Paragraph 17(1)(c) requires that the applicant was “resident and present in Canada during the week”
. The respondent in this case called it the “Presence Requirement”
. It arises in this case because the applicant was not present in Canada during weeks for which she received CRCB payments.
[37] Paragraph 17(1)(f) is a complex provision. The respondent called it the “Caregiving Requirement”
. To obtain the benefit for a particular week, a self-employed claimant must have reduced their hours devoted to work by at least 50% because they were caring for a family member who required supervised care, because a “day program or facility”
was closed or unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19.
[38] To summarize what matters for the present case under paragraph 17(1)(f): if a child was in daycare and that daycare was closed due to COVID-19 and a self-employed parent had to reduce their work hours by more than half to care for the child, the parent met the requirement for eligibility in that paragraph.
[39] The CRA officer also considered paragraphs 17(1)(d), (e) and (e.1). Justice Gascon explained the following in Aung, at para 25:
Among other things, the CRB Act requires employees or self-employed workers to have earned at least $5,000 in employment income or net self-employment income in 2019, 2020 or 2021 or in the 12-month period preceding their application for the CRCB (subparagraphs 17(1)(d)‒(e.1) and paragraph 17(2)). It also states that, in the case of an employee, they must have been unable to work for, or in the case of a self-employed person, reduced the time devoted to their work by, at least 50% of the time they would have otherwise worked in that week, either because they cared for a child under 12 years of age or for a family member who required supervised care because of facility closure related to COVID-19, of an inability to attend a facility for reasons related to COVID-19 or the person who usually cared for the child of the family member was not available for reasons related to COVID-19 (subparagraph 17(1)(f) of the CRB Act). For the purpose of the CRCB, a family member includes anyone whom the person considers to be like a close relative or who considers the person to be like a close relative (paragraph 17(3) of the CRB Act). Moreover, if two or more persons reside in the same household, only one of them may be paid a CRCB for any particular week (paragraph 23(3) of the CRB Act).
[Emphasis added.]
[40] An individual could apply for CRCB payments for a maximum of 44 weeks: section 23.
B. Law on the proper application of the eligibility criteria
[41] As with other pandemic benefit payments, CRA had no choice but to apply the eligibility criteria in the legislation and to assess an applicant’s entitlement to benefits based on those criteria: Flock v. Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FCA 187 at paras 4, 7. The Court cannot rewrite or revise the requirements of the statute and a CRA official cannot provide relief on the grounds of fairness only: Flock, at para 7. The application of the conditions in paragraphs 17(1)(a) to (i) does not include the exercise of any discretion by CRA.
[42] In addition, an individual claiming benefit payments must meet all of the applicable eligibility criteria: Baidar v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 431, at para 55. That is because, with one proviso, subsection 17(1) contains a conjunctive list of criteria for eligibility as found in paragraphs (a) to (i). The applicable criteria are conjunctive because of the express language and the construction of the listed requirements in the provision. In English, it provides that a “person is eligible”
for the CRCB during the stated weeks “if …”
, followed by the paragraphs (a) to (i). The word “and”
appears between paragraphs (h) and (i). In French, the chapeau language of subsection 17(1) provides “
[e]st admissible … la personne qui remplit les conditions suivantes …”
followed by paragraphs (a) to (i). The two versions are equally authoritative in law and in this case, the words contain the same meaning. While “and”
may be disjunctive in certain contexts, it is usually conjunctive: see Tan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FCA 36, at para 64, citing Ruth Sullivan, The Construction of Statutes, 7th Ed., LexisNexis Canada Inc., June 2022, § 4.05 [19]. The language and context require the list to be a conjunctive set of requirements.
[43] The proviso is that, although subsection 17(1) creates a conjunctive list of requirements overall, I do not imply that the income requirements in paragraphs 17(1)(d), (e) and (e.1) must all be met in every case. Those paragraphs are drafted to provide income requirements for weeks beginning in 2020, 2021 and 2022 respectively, so their application depends on the time period(s) during which an individual made a claim for benefits.
[44] This interpretation implies that, to be eligible for the CRCB payments she received, the applicant had to meet the requirements of both paragraphs 17(1)(c) and (f). She also had to meet other requirements (including the income requirements in paragraphs 17(1)(d), (e) and (e.1) for the weekly periods to which each paragraph applies), but in my view, they are not material to this application for judicial review.
V. Analysis
A. Was the Decision unreasonable?
[45] The standard of review is reasonableness, as described in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653: Aung, at para 14-15.
[46] Reasonableness review is a deferential and disciplined evaluation of whether an administrative decision is transparent, intelligible and justified: Vavilov, at paras 12-13 and 15; Mason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21, at paras 8, 63. The starting point is the reasons provided by the decision maker, which are read holistically and contextually, and in conjunction with the record that was before the decision maker. A decision maker’s reasons must be read “in light of the record and with due sensitivity to the administrative regime in which they were given”
: Vavilov, at paras 91-96, 103; Mason, at paras 61, 91. A reasonable decision is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrained the decision maker: Vavilov, esp. at paras 85, 91-97, 103, 105-106 and 194; Mason, at paras 8, 59-61, 66.
[47] The Court’s role on a judicial review application is not to determine whether the impugned decision was correct. Appellate cases instruct the Court not to do its own analysis of the circumstances or come to its own conclusion on the merits: Mason, at para 62; Vavilov, at para 83; Delios v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FCA 117, at para 28. Absent exceptional circumstances, the Court also will not reweigh or reassess the information that was before the decision maker: Vavilov, at paras 125-126.
[48] In my view, the Decision was reasonable. I find no legal error in the identification or the application of the criteria in subsection 17(1) of the CRB Act.
[49] First, the Decision identified the appropriate criteria in subsection 17(1). The applicant did not allege that the Decision contained a legal error in this respect.
[50] Second, the legislation required a claimant to be “resident and present in Canada during the week”
for which CRCB payments are paid: paragraph 17(1)(c). CRA’s decision reasonably applied that provision to the uncontested fact that the applicant was outside the country from March 13, 2021, to May 27, 2022. The Decision made no reviewable error by finding that her absence from Canada rendered her ineligible for the CRCB during those weeks, which covered the weekly periods 24 to 42, 65 and 68.
[51] Third, the CRB Act also required, for eligibility, that a claimant fall under paragraph 17(1)(f). The facts before the CRA officer, obtained during the telephone call with the applicant on September 23, 2025, were that her children were not in daycare. They were at home both before and during the pandemic. Using the statutory language, the applicant’s family members (the twins) were not in a “day program or facility”
or in “care service that [was] normally provided to the family member at their place of residence”
that was not available for “reasons related to COVID-19”
: CRB Act, ss. 17(1)(f)(ii)(A), (B) and (C). As the twins were in care at home, the Decision reasonably concluded that the applicant’s time devoted to her work as a self-employed person was not reduced by the closure or unavailability of a daycare or similar facility affected by COVID-19 as was required for eligibility under paragraph 17(1)(f).
[52] Accordingly, the Decision respected the legal requirements in subsection 17(1)(f) and did not fundamentally misapprehend or ignore any material facts related to the criteria in paragraph 17(1)(f) of the CRB Act: Vavilov, at paras 125-126.
[53] These requirements in paragraphs 17(1)(c) and (f) cover all of the one-week periods for which the applicant received CRCB payments. As the applicable requirements in subsection 17(1) are conjunctive as described above, it is unnecessary to address the reasonableness of CRA’s conclusion concerning the applicant’s eligibility under the income requirements in paragraphs 17(1)(d), (e) and (e.1).
[54] For these reasons, I conclude that the applicant has not shown that the Decision was unreasonable, applying the judicial review principles in Vavilov.
B. Did CRA breach its obligation of procedural fairness?
[55] The applicant also argued that the Decision should be set aside on the grounds that it was procedurally unfair. The applicant submitted that the CRA did not fulfill its duty to consider the evidence before it and did not sufficiently “provide a reasoned analysis.”
[56] The Court assesses procedural fairness issues on a standard akin to correctness. The question is whether the procedure used by the decision maker was fair, having regard to all circumstances including the nature of the substantive rights involved and the consequences for the individual(s) affected. An applicant is entitled to know the case to meet and to have a reasonable or meaningful opportunity to respond to it: see e.g., Pless v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FCA 61, at para 9; Ashurova v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FCA 54, at paras 11, 17; Pelletier v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 190, at para 6; Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69, [2019] 1 FCR 121, esp. at paras 49, 54 and 56.
[57] The procedural fairness obligations in the review process for pandemic benefits are at the low end of the scale: see Javed v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1535, at para 33 and the cases cited there.
[58] Having reviewed the record, I am satisfied that the applicant knew the case to meet and had a reasonable and meaningful opportunity to be heard and to participate in the decision making process. She received the Initial Contact Letter dated November 20, 2024, which raised concerns about her presence in Canada and her eligibility for the CRCB. She provided documents on December 29, 2024 and on February 23, 2025 before the first review decision, and additional documents on March 11, 2025 and on September 23, 2025 before the second review Decision. She had an opportunity to provide additional information during the telephone call with CRA on September 23, 2025. She provided additional information after that call. In the course of these interactions, the applicant made submissions to support her eligibility.
[59] The process leading to the Decision complied with the procedural fairness obligations owed by CRA in the circumstances. The applicant was aware of the case to meet on eligibility had a meaningful opportunity to participate in the process, and did meaningfully participate by providing information and submissions.
VI. Conclusion
[60] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
[61] The name of the respondent will be changed to the Attorney General of Canada under Rule 302 of the Federal Courts Rules, as requested by the respondent and discussed at the hearing.
[62] The respondent did not seek costs and no costs order will be made.
JUDGMENT IN T-4110-25
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
-
The application for judicial review is dismissed, without costs.
-
The style of cause is amended to reflect the Attorney General of Canada as the respondent.
|
blank
|
"Andrew D. Little"
|
|
blank
|
Judge
|
Schedule “A”
Canada Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020, c 12, s 2 at section 17
17 (1) A person is eligible for a Canada recovery caregiving benefit for any week falling within the period beginning on September 27, 2020 and ending on May 7, 2022 if
|
17 (1) Est admissible à la prestation canadienne de relance économique pour les proches aidants, à l’égard de toute semaine comprise dans la période commençant le 27 septembre 2020 et se terminant le 7 mai 2022, la personne qui remplit les conditions suivantes :
|
(a) they have a valid social insurance number;
|
a) elle détient un numéro d’assurance sociale valide;
|
(b) they were at least 15 years of age on the first day of the week;
|
b) elle était âgée d’au moins quinze ans le premier jour de la semaine visée;
|
(c) they were resident and present in Canada during the week;
|
c) elle résidait et était présente au Canada au cours de la semaine visée;
|
(d) in the case of an application made under section 18 in respect of a week 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 18 à l’égard d’une semaine 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 18 in respect of a week 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 18 à l’égard d’une semaine 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;
|
(e.1) in the case of an application made under section 18 in respect of a week beginning in 2022, they had, for 2019, 2020 or 2021 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.1) dans le cas d’une demande présentée en vertu de l’article 18 à l’égard d’une semaine qui débute en 2022, ses revenus provenant des sources mentionnées aux sous-alinéas d)(i) à (v) pour l’année 2019, 2020 ou 2021 ou au cours des douze mois précédant la date à laquelle elle présente sa demande s’élevaient à au moins cinq mille dollars;
|
(f) they have, as an employee, been unable to work for at least 50% of the time they would have otherwise worked in that week — or they have, as a self-employed person, reduced the time devoted to their work as a self-employed person by at least 50% of the time they would have otherwise worked in that week — because
|
f) au cours de la semaine visée, elle a été incapable d’exercer son emploi pendant au moins cinquante pour cent du temps durant lequel elle aurait par ailleurs travaillé — ou a réduit d’au moins cinquante pour cent le temps qu’elle aurait par ailleurs consacré au travail qu’elle exécute pour son compte — pour l’une ou l’autre des raisons suivantes :
|
(i) they cared for a child who was under 12 years of age on the first day of the week because
|
(i) elle s’occupait d’un enfant qui avait moins de douze ans le premier jour de la semaine visée, pour l’une ou l’autre des raisons suivantes :
|
(A) the school or other facility that the child normally attended was, for reasons related to COVID-19, closed, open only at certain times or open only for certain children,
|
(A) l’école ou toute autre installation que l’enfant fréquentait était fermée, ou ouverte seulement durant certaines périodes ou seulement pour certains enfants, pour des raisons liées à la COVID-19,
|
(B) the child could not attend the school or other facility because
|
(B) l’enfant ne pouvait fréquenter l’école ou l’installation car :
|
(I) the child contracted or might have contracted COVID-19,
|
(I) soit il a contracté la COVID-19 ou pourrait avoir contracté la COVID-19,
|
(II) the child was in isolation on the advice of a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, person in authority, government or public health authority for reasons related to COVID-19, or
|
(II) soit il était en isolement sur l’avis d’un médecin, d’un infirmier praticien, d’une personne en situation d’autorité, d’un gouvernement ou d’un organisme de santé publique pour des raisons liées à la COVID-19,
|
(III) the child would, in the opinion of a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner, be at risk of having serious health complications if the child contracted COVID-19, or
|
(III) soit il risquait, de l’avis d’un médecin ou d’un infirmier praticien, de développer de graves complications s’il contractait la COVID-19,
|
(C) the person who usually cared for the child was not available for reasons related to COVID-19, or
|
(C) la personne qui s’en occupait habituellement n’était pas disponible pour des raisons liées à la COVID-19,
|
(ii) they cared for a family member who requires supervised care because
|
(ii) elle s’occupait d’un membre de la famille qui nécessite des soins supervisés, pour l’une ou l’autre des raisons suivantes :
|
(A) the day program or facility that the family member normally attended was, for reasons related to COVID-19, unavailable or closed, available or open only at certain times or available or open only for certain persons,
|
(A) l’installation que le membre de la famille fréquentait ou le programme de jour qu’il suivait était fermé ou suspendu, ou ouvert ou offert seulement durant certaines périodes ou seulement pour certaines personnes, pour des raisons liées à la COVID-19,
|
(B) the family member could not attend the day program or facility because
|
(B) le membre de la famille ne pouvait fréquenter l’installation ou suivre le programme de jour car :
|
(I) the family member contracted or might have contracted COVID-19,
|
(I) soit il a contracté la COVID-19 ou pourrait avoir contracté la COVID-19,
|
(II) the family member was in isolation on the advice of their employer, a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, person in authority, government or public health authority for reasons related to COVID-19, or
|
(II) soit il était en isolement sur l’avis de son employeur, d’un médecin, d’un infirmier praticien, d’une personne en situation d’autorité, d’un gouvernement ou d’un organisme de santé publique pour des raisons liées à la COVID-19,
|
(III) the family member would, in the opinion of a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner, be at risk of having serious health complications if the family member contracted COVID-19, or
|
(III) soit il risquait, de l’avis d’un médecin ou d’un infirmier praticien, de développer de graves complications s’il contractait la COVID-19,
|
(C) the care services that are normally provided to the family member at their place of residence were not available for reasons related to COVID-19;
|
(C) les services de soins que le membre de la famille recevait habituellement à sa résidence n’étaient pas offerts pour des raisons liées à la COVID-19;
|
(g) no income referred to in any of the following subparagraphs was paid or was payable to the person in respect of the week:
|
g) aucun des revenus ci-après ne lui a été versé ou n’aurait eu à lui être versé à l’égard de la semaine visée :
|
(i) benefits, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Employment Insurance Act,
|
(i) des prestations, au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi sur l’assurance-emploi,
|
(ii) 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,
|
(ii) 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
|
(iii) a Canada recovery benefit or a Canada recovery sickness benefit,
|
(iii) une prestation canadienne pour la relance économique ou une prestation canadienne de maladie pour la relance économique,
|
(iii.1) a lockdown benefit, as defined in section 2 of the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit Act, and
|
(iii.1) une prestation de confinement, au sens de l’article 2 de la Loi sur la prestation canadienne pour les travailleurs en cas de confinement,
|
(iv) any other income that is prescribed by regulation;
|
(iv) tout autre revenu prévu par règlement;
|
(h) they have not, in respect of the week, been granted paid leave or been paid under a plan that provides for payment for the care or support of another person; and
|
h) elle n’a pas reçu, à l’égard de la semaine visée, de congé payé ou de paiements au titre d’un régime d’indemnité pour soins ou soutien à donner à une personne;
|
(i) they were not, at any time during the week, required to quarantine or isolate themselves under any order made under the Quarantine Act as a result of entering into Canada or
|
i) elle n’a été tenue, à aucun moment au cours de la semaine visée, de se mettre en quarantaine ou de s’isoler en application d’un décret pris en vertu de la Loi sur la mise en quarantaine en raison de son entrée au Canada ou :
|
(i) if they were required to do so at any time during the week, the only reason for their having been outside Canada was to
|
(i) si elle y a été tenue à un moment quelconque au cours de la semaine visée, la seule raison pour laquelle elle était sortie du Canada était, selon le cas :
|
(A) receive a medical treatment that has been certified by a medical practitioner to be necessary, or
|
(A) pour recevoir un traitement médical qui, d’après l’attestation d’un médecin, était nécessaire,
|
(B) accompany a person who has been certified by a medical practitioner to be incapable of travelling without the assistance of an attendant and whose only reason for having been outside Canada was to receive a medical treatment that has been certified by a medical practitioner to be necessary, or
|
(B) pour accompagner une personne qui, d’après l’attestation d’un médecin, était incapable de voyager sans l’aide d’un préposé à ses soins et dont la seule raison de sortir du Canada était pour recevoir un traitement médical qui, d’après l’attestation d’un médecin, était nécessaire,
|
(ii) if, as a result of entering into Canada, they were required to isolate themselves under such an order at any time during the week, they are a person to whom the requirement to quarantine themselves under the order would not have applied had they not been required to isolate themselves.
|
(ii) si, en raison de son entrée au Canada, elle a été tenue de s’isoler en application d’un tel décret à un moment quelconque au cours de la semaine visée, elle est une personne qui, n’eût été l’obligation de s’isoler, n’aurait pas été assujettie à l’obligation de se mettre en quarantaine en application du décret.
|
(2) For the purpose of paragraphs (1)(d) to (e.1), income from self-employment is revenue from the self-employment less expenses incurred to earn that revenue.
|
(2) Le revenu visé aux alinéas (1)d) à e.1) de la personne qui exécute un travail pour son compte est son revenu moins les dépenses engagées pour le gagner.
|
(3) In subsection (1), family member, in respect of a person, includes anyone whom the person considers to be like a close relative or who considers the person to be like a close relative.
|
(3) Au paragraphe (1), est assimilée à un membre de la famille la personne considérée comme un proche parent ou qui se considère comme un proche parent.
|
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
Email this Content