Background
Wahaj Mohammed Rafeeq received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit from March 15 to August 29, 2020, and the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit from December 26, 2021, to January 8, 2022. After reviewing his eligibility, the Canada Revenue Agency found him ineligible. Rafeeq requested a second review and had submitted a letter, bank statements, and transaction records.
The second-review officer needed more information about Rafeeq’s self-employment income, business activities, expenses, work schedule, and the effect of COVID-19 on his work. The officer left a voicemail on September 3, 2025, but received no response before completing the review 22 days later. Based on the material on file, the CRA concluded that Rafeeq had not established his eligibility for either benefit.
On judicial review, Rafeeq relied on additional materials, including annotated bank statements, invoices, and a COVID-19 test result. The Federal Court ruled that this evidence was not before the CRA officer and did not fall within an exception permitting new evidence on judicial review. It also amended the style of cause to substitute the Attorney General of Canada as the proper respondent.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court dismissed the application. Reading the denial letter together with the officer’s notes, Justice Turley held that the decision was intelligible, justified, and transparent. The notes explained that bank statements alone did not establish when income was earned, which deposits belonged to Rafeeq in the shared account, the nature and expenses of his self-employment, or whether COVID-19 interrupted his regular work schedule.
The Court also found no procedural unfairness. The level of procedural fairness owed in a CRA COVID-19-benefits review was at the low end of the spectrum. Rafeeq knew from the first review that CRA officers might contact him by telephone, did not advise the CRA that he would be outside Canada and unavailable, and was given 22 days to respond to the voicemail before the officer decided the matter on the existing record.
The Court dismissed the judicial-review application without costs. It did not independently determine Rafeeq’s entitlement to the benefits; it upheld the reasonableness and fairness of the CRA’s decision-making process.
Key Takeaways
- A CRA officer’s contemporaneous review notes form part of the reasons assessed on judicial review.
- Evidence not presented to the administrative decision-maker generally cannot be used to challenge the decision unless a recognized exception applies.
- Leaving a voicemail and waiting 22 days before deciding a COVID-19-benefits review was procedurally fair in the circumstances.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that benefit recipients must provide the CRA with records connecting deposits and earnings to their work, expenses, relevant benefit periods, and claimed COVID-19-related interruption. Unannotated bank statements may be inadequate, particularly when they concern a shared account.
It also illustrates the limited role of judicial review. Applicants ordinarily cannot repair gaps in the administrative record by submitting invoices, annotations, medical evidence, or other supporting documents for the first time in Federal Court.