Date: 20241128
Docket: T-827-24
Citation: 2024 FC 1913
Ottawa, Ontario, November 28, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice McVeigh
BETWEEN: |
JIELONG FENG |
Applicant |
and |
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. OVERVIEW
[1] The Applicant is a self-represented individual seeking judicial review of a decision of the Canada Revenue Agency [CRA], dated March 18, 2024 [the Decision].
[2] In the Decision, a second reviewing officer [the Officer] found the Applicant inadmissible for the Canada Recovery Benefit [CRB] for 27 two-week periods between September 27, 2020, and October 9, 2021 [the Relevant Periods]. The Officer determined that the Applicant did not have a 50% reduction in his average weekly earnings compared to the legislated pre-pandemic reference periods.
[3] The Applicant asks this Court to quash the Decision and confirm his entitlement to the CRB payments or, in the alternative, refer his file back to the CRA for reconsideration.
[4] For the reasons that follow, this Application is dismissed.
[5] The Officer correctly calculated the Applicant’s average weekly income. The Applicant had submitted evidence showing that, for each Relevant Period, his income had not decreased by at least 50%. Therefore, the Officer had no discretion to find the Applicant eligible for CRB.
II. BACKGROUND
[6] In 2020, the federal government introduced the CRB to support Canada’s economic recovery in response to COVID-19. The enabling legislation is the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020, c 12, s 2 [CRB Act].
[7] During COVID-19, the CRB provided income support for any two-week period beginning on September 27, 2020, and ending on October 23, 2021, to eligible employed and self-employed individuals who were directly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic (see Kleiman v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 762 at para 2).
[8] To be eligible for the CRB, individuals were subject to the criteria set out in section 3 of the CRB Act. As one of the statutory requirements, applicants were required to have (1) been unemployed (or self-employed) for reasons related to COVID-19 or (2) experienced a reduction of at least 50% in their average weekly employment (or self-employment) income for reasons related to COVID-19 (CRB Act, s 3(1)(f)) [the 50% Reduction Criterion]. The 50% Reduction Criterion is calculated relative to the applicant’s total average weekly employment (or self-employment) income from 2019, 2020, or the 12-month period preceding the CRB application date (CRB Act, s 3(1)(f)) [the Comparison Period].
III. ARGUMENT
[9] The Applicant is a recent permanent resident of Canada. He immigrated in 2019 and started working in Canada in mid-September 2019. From March to June 2020, the Applicant’s income was reduced to nil due to COVID-19 restrictions. The Applicant’s central argument is that, despite being precisely the type of person who should benefit from the CRB, he was denied eligibility because of his arrival in Canada shortly before the pandemic.
[10] In both reviews, the CRA calculated the Applicant’s income for the Comparison Periods based on the income he earned after arriving in Canada. In other words, they did not truncate these amounts to calculate an average income level reflecting the fact that he was unable to earn uninterrupted income for a full 12-month Comparison Period. The Applicant had only three and a half months of income in 2019 and only two and a half months of full-time income at the start of 2020, after which his income was affected by the pandemic. This is why his income was so low. The Applicant points to his pay stubs from shortly before the pandemic and recent income tax returns to show that, but for the pandemic, his annual income during the Comparison Periods would have been more than $36,000 (or $3,000 per month).
[11] The Applicant requests this Court – or the CRA – to review his case using his uninterrupted pre-COVID monthly income averages (mid-September 2019 to mid-March 2020) as the comparative benchmark instead of the Comparison Periods as defined in paragraph 3(1)(f) of the CRB Act. He argues that this is only fair; it reflects the reality that he did not arrive in Canada early enough to establish an accurate pre-pandemic income benchmark.
IV. ANALYSIS
[12] The applicable standard of review in this matter is reasonableness. At the hearing, the Applicant was advised that this judicial review is not a de novo assessment of his entitlement to the CRB (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 83 [Vavilov]). My role in this case is to determine whether the Officer’s Decision “bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints”
(Vavilov at para 99).
[13] The Applicant appears to take no issue with the Officer’s income calculations or interpretation of the CRB Act. Rather, he disputes the legal effect of the CRB Act itself. The Applicant asks the Court to consider his extenuating circumstances that unfairly skew the Comparison Period calculations.
[14] The Officer considered the Applicant’s circumstances during their review, noting in their Second Review Report that the Applicant “does not feel… [that his lack of a full-time annual income during the Comparison Periods] was taken into consideration when determining if there was a 50% reduction in income compared to the previous year.”
The CRA’s notes also demonstrate that the Applicant was confused about how to conduct the calculation. This was confirmed at the hearing, where he noted that it was not until the CRA sought to validate his application that he was informed of the eligibility requirements.
[15] Despite the Applicant’s confusion, the Officer’s notes and calculations plainly indicate why he was ineligible under the CRB Act. These notes show that the Officer calculated the 50% Reduction Criterion, considering the Applicant’s average annual income in 2019, 2020, and the 12 months preceding the Applicant’s first CRB application on October 12, 2020. Despite the 12 months preceding his application being the highest sum, his average income for that Comparison Period still fell short of the Applicant meeting the 50% Reduction Criterion.
[16] The Officer calculated the Applicant’s bi-weekly income for the Comparison Periods as follows:
2019 annual income was $14,000, resulting in average bi-weekly income of $538.46. 50% reduction = $269.23.
2020 annual income was $14,600, resulting in average bi-weekly income of $561.54. 50% reduction = $280.77.
Income for the 12-month period preceding the Applicant’s CRB application was $22,600, resulting in average bi-weekly income of $869.23. 50% reduction = $434.61.
[17] Using the pay stubs that the Applicant provided, the Officer then calculated the Applicant’s income for each of the 27 Periods at issue. The Applicant was denied CRB for each of the Relevant Periods because, during each two-week Period, his income was greater than $434.61.
[18] The Officer’s method of calculation was consistent with the CRB Act. In Saadi v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 648 [Saadi], Justice Grammond rejected the applicant’s argument that only the weeks he actually worked should be used to calculate the Comparison Periods. CRB conditions are established by statute and CRA officers have no discretion to change them (Saadi at paras 2, 10-14). The 50% Reduction Criterion requires the CRB applicant to have had a reduction of at least 50% in their average weekly income relative to the most favourable Comparison Period. In this case, the Applicant did not meet the 50% Reduction Criterion for any of the Relevant Periods. I see no error in the Decision at hand.
[19] An applicant challenging a decision bears the burden of showing that there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in it such that the decision cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, transparency, and intelligibility (Vavilov at para 100). In this case, the Applicant has not done so. I dismiss the Application accordingly.
V. STYLE OF CAUSE
[20] The proper responding party should be the Attorney General of Canada, as the Applicant is challenging a decision made by an officer of the CRA on behalf of the Minister. The style of cause will be amended accordingly.
VI. COSTS
[21] I decline to award costs against the self-represented Applicant in this matter.
Email this Content