Date: 20241209
|
Docket: T-466-23
T-470-23
|
Citation: 2024 FC 1984
|
Ottawa, Ontario, December 9, 2024
|
PRESENT: Madam Justice Azmudeh |
BETWEEN:
|
LIN DU
|
Applicant
|
and
|
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA |
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Ms. Lin Du, brings this application for judicial review of two decisions by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), one when CRA denied benefits under Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB), and the other when they denied under the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit (CWLB).
[2] Approximately ten days prior to the judicial hearing application, the Respondent wrote to the Court to advise that they have conceded that the decisions made for both the CRB and CWLB were unreasonable and that they would consent to remitting the case to be decided by a different decision-maker. Despite the Respondent’s position, the Applicant stated that she wished to continue with the judicial review.
[3] At the judicial review, the Applicant stated that she expected this Court to order the CRA to deem the Applicant eligible for the benefits, meaning the Applicant seeks an order of mandamus. She did not rely on any authorities to support her argument.
[4] I am sympathetic to the Applicant and have no reason to doubt that she honestly believes she is eligible for the benefits. I also understand that she might find it frustrating to navigate the multitude of programs. Nevertheless, I find that this is not a proper basis to grant mandamus (order the CRA to make a particular decision).
II. Preliminary Issues
A. Style of Cause
[5] The Applicant is self-represented and filed her application naming the Canada Revenue Agency- Canada Emergency Benefits Validation as the Respondent.
[6] The Applicant is challenging a decision made by the CRA on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Social Development. As such, the proper Respondent is the Attorney General of Canada.
[7] I agree with the Respondent’s argument that the style of cause should be amended to name the Attorney General of Canada as the Respondent, in accordance with Rule 303 (2) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 [the Rules].
III. Analysis
[8] At the judicial review hearing, the Respondent maintained their earlier position to return both cases to the CRA for redetermination. The only outstanding issue before me is whether I ought to order a mandamus (an order that the decision maker makes a particular decision) in this case.
[9] This Court has held that directions from the court in disposing of an application for judicial review are rare (see Ahmed v Canada (Citizenship v Immigration), 2022 FC 1496 at para 17).
[10] It is not the norm for the reviewing court to substitute its opinion on the matter for that of the administrative decision maker on judicial review. It is only in exceptional circumstances that even under a reasonableness standard of review, the only reasonable interpretation of the facts and the law would result in one outcome. Then, it will be in the interests of justice for a reviewing court to limit the options open to the administrative decision maker responsible for determining the question at issue (see Garshowitz v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 251 at para 8; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Tennant, 2019 FCA 206 at para 74). However, the Applicant has not demonstrated how and why this exception should apply to her case.
[11] On the merits of the decision, given that the Respondent concedes that both files are unreasonable, the Court should send the matters back for redetermination by another Officer. I do not find that the circumstances of Ms. Du’s case warrant this Court directing or ordering the CRA to make a particular decision. There is no significant delay nor severe impact on Ms. Du while she waits for a determination.
[12] The parties did not make submissions on costs. Given the discretionary nature of Rule 400 of the Rules, and the fact that the parties are not seeking costs, I find that each party bears its own costs.
JUDGMENT in files T-466-23 and T-470-23
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that
The style of cause shall hereby be amended to name the Attorney General of Canada as the Respondent, in accordance with Rule 303 (2) of the Rules.
The application for judicial review is allowed without cost.
Each matter is remitted to Canada Revenue Agency to be determined by a different decision-maker.
“Negar Azmudeh”
Email this Content