Docket: T-286-26
Citation: 2026 FC 1219
Toronto, Ontario, October 2, 2026
PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
DAN QIU
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1] Dan Qiu [Applicant] has brought this motion in writing seeking judicial review of a decision of the Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] dated December 17, 2025 [Final Decision], which determined that the Applicant was ineligible for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit [CERB] and the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit [CRSB]. The Applicant submits that the Final Decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair.
[2] For the more detailed reasons that follow, I find that the Applicant has not met his onus of showing that the Final Decision is unreasonable or that it was arrived at in an unfair manner. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
II. Facts
A. The Applicant’s Receipt of CERB and CRSB
[3] The Applicant received CERB for five four-week periods from March 15, 2020, to August 1, 2020. He also received CRSB for two one-week periods from February 14-27, 2021. In a letter dated July 4, 2024, the CRA advised the Applicant that his eligibility for these benefits was being reviewed and requested documents to support his eligibility.
[4] The Applicant responded by letter dated September 2, 2024, and provided the following documents: (i) a letter signed on July 21, 2020 by his employer, requiring his agreement to protocols and measures upon return to work during the pandemic; (ii) an undated employer’s letter regarding claims for employment insurance sickness benefits; (iii) a March 20, 2020, memo from his employer regarding the temporary closure of the manufacturing facility due to COVID-19; and (iv) an undated letter from the Applicant providing the dates his workplace was closed and when he returned to work.
B. The final level review
[5] The CRA Officer [First Reviewer] reviewed the documents provided by the Applicant as well as his reported T4 earnings. The First Reviewer tried to call the Applicant on December 3, 4 and 5, 2024, but was unable to reach or leave a voice mail for him.
[6] By letter dated January 8, 2025 [First Decision], the Applicant was advised that he had been found to be ineligible for the CERB because he had not shown that he: (i) earned less than $1,000.00 of employment or self-employment income during the applicable payment period; and (ii) stopped working or had his hours reduced for reasons related to COVID-19. He was also found ineligible for the CRSB as he had not demonstrated that his scheduled work week was reduced by at least 50% because he was self-isolating for reasons related to COVID-19.
C. The second level review
[7] In a letter dated February 11, 2025, the Applicant requested a second level review and provided copies of the documents he had previously submitted along with the following additional documents: (i) bank deposit information between March 1, 2020, and August 31, 2020; (ii) a paystub for the period December 29, 2024, to January 11, 2025; (iii) a letter dated February 8, 2025, explaining his eligibility; and (iv) a copy of the First Decision.
[8] A CRA Officer [Second Reviewer] spoke to the Applicant on November 28, 2025. According to the screen captures from the CRA’s T1Case specific notes contained in the Certified Tribunal Record, the Second Reviewer explained the eligibility criteria to the Applicant and why the submitted documents were insufficient. The Second Reviewer asked the Applicant to provide pay stubs or a record of employment for the CERB periods to match the Applicant’s bank statements as well as documentation to show the Applicant’s 50% reduction in hours for the CRSB.
[9] The Applicant was given a deadline of December 11, 2025, to provide any additional documents.
[10] Six days after the Applicant failed to provide any additional documents, he received the Final Decision which found him ineligible for the CERB and CRSB for the same reasons cited in the First Decision.
[11] On January 12, 2026, the Applicant tried to contact the CRA and submit additional documentation; however, he was advised that the second level review had concluded.
III. Issues and Standard of Review
[12] The Applicant’s notice of application and written representations state that the Final Decision is both unreasonable and procedurally unfair.
[13] A reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 85 [Vavilov]). An applicant bears the onus of showing that a decision is unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100).
[14] An issue of procedural fairness is reviewable on a standard akin to correctness (Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 [Canadian Pacific] at paras 34-35 and 54-55, citing Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 79). The Court looks to ensure that administrative decisions are made using a fair, open and appropriate procedure that provides an opportunity for those affected by the decision to understand the case they have to meet and put forward their views and evidence fully for consideration by an impartial decision maker (Canadian Pacific at para 41).
IV. Preliminary Issue
[15] The Applicant provided a supporting affidavit on this application where he explains the difficulties he encountered in obtaining documents from his employer. Those difficulties included: a need for the coordinated efforts of both the human resources and accounting departments during a period where some staff were working remotely or were on vacation; changes to the employer’s internal systems in 2022; and a lack of accessibility to payroll records from 2020 due to staffing changes and the new staff’s lack of familiarity with the documents. He also states in his affidavit that English is not his first language, and he had “difficulty communicating complex matters accurately and effectively over the telephone”
with the Second Reviewer.
[16] The affidavit attaches the following documents that do not appear in the Certified Tribunal Record: (i) a record of employment demonstrating earnings for the period April 13, 2019, to April 11, 2020; (ii) a T4 slip for 2020; (iii) a letter from the Applicant’s employer dated January 12, 2026; and (iv) travel records between Canada and China covering the period December 25, 2025, and January 9, 2026.
[17] The Respondent objects to the Applicant’s inclusion of new evidence in the Application Record and relies on well-established law that holds that judicial review of an administrative tribunal should be based on the record that was before the decision maker (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency, 2012 FCA 22 at para 19 [Access Copyright]). The Respondent acknowledges that there are recognized exceptions to this rule but argues none of these exceptions apply.
[18] I will allow the paragraphs of the Applicant’s affidavit which speak to the Applicant’s language ability and the difficulty he had in obtaining documents from his employer as this evidence goes to the Applicant’s procedural fairness argument and is not apparent from the record (Access Copyright at para 20). However, items (i), (ii) and (iii) shall be excluded from the application record as they were not before the Second Reviewer and go to the merits of the Final Decision, which is not permissible (Henri v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 38 at paras 40-41). Item (iv) shall also be excluded as it is not relevant: the Applicant states in his affidavit that these travel documents show that he travelled to China and changed his return date to prepare documents for his application for judicial review.
V. Analysis
A. Is the Final Decision unreasonable?
[19] The Applicant submits that “[t]he CRA failed to properly assess the Applicant’s income.”
This is the full extent of the Applicant’s submission as to why the Final Decision is unreasonable.
[20] This bald submission is insufficient to meet the Applicant’s onus on this application which requires that he identify a serious shortcoming in the Final Decision that is more than merely superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision (Vavilov at para 100).
[21] While I acknowledge the Applicant’s status as a self-represented litigant, it would be improper for this Court to engage in its own unchartered analysis of the reasonableness of the Second Reviewer’s assessment of the Applicant’s income as this would involve an element of advocacy that would compromise the Court’s neutrality and impartiality (Girao v Cunningham, 2020 ONCA 260 at para 151).
B. Did the CRA fail to provide a fair opportunity for the Applicant to respond?
[22] The Applicant submits that he was given insufficient time to respond to the Second Reviewer, “[g]iven the complexity of obtaining employer records and the Applicant’s language barriers.”
[23] Having considered the Applicant’s evidence and the process followed by the First and Second Reviewers, I am satisfied that the procedure leading to the Final Decision was fair having regard to all of the circumstances (Jagadeesh v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2024 FCA 172 at para 53; Canadian Pacific at paras 44–56). Importantly, the level of procedural fairness owed by the CRA to an applicant for COVID-19 benefits has been held to be at the low end of the spectrum (Cozak v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1571 [Cozak] at para 17).
[24] While the Applicant notes that the Second Reviewer did not provide any follow-up in writing, the Applicant states in his affidavit that he understood the deadline the Second Reviewer gave him to provide the new documents. Neither the CERB Act, SC 2020, c 5, s 8, nor the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020, c 12, s 2, require the CRA to provide any written notice prior to rendering a decision (Cozak at para 17). The Applicant bore the onus of providing the documents necessary to support his eligibility and while he suggests that the time he was given to gather new documents was “unreasonably short,”
he has failed to explain why he did not contact the CRA to tell them about his difficulties or to seek an extension of time. Rather, he simply let the deadline pass.
[25] I am also unable to find a denial of procedural fairness based on the Applicant’s language ability. The Federal Court of Appeal has found that there is no breach of procedural fairness where an individual obtains the assistance of others to address a language barrier and is otherwise aware of the case they had to meet (Elykova v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 97 at para 7). The record shows that the Applicant was assisted on the call with the Second Reviewer by his daughter and wife for the specific purpose of helping him with his English. The Second Reviewer not only provided an explanation as to why the Applicant’s documentation was insufficient but gave him guidance on the documents he needed to provide. Despite the challenges identified by the Applicant, the Applicant knew what documentation the CRA was asking for, and he had a fair opportunity to provide it.
VI. Conclusion
[26] This application is dismissed as the Applicant has not shown a basis for this Court’s intervention.
[27] The Respondent has sought costs fixed in the amount of $600.00 which is reasonable and in line with a calculation of costs under Tariff B, Table 2, Column 1 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.
Email this Content