Background
Wu Cai received Canada Recovery Benefit payments covering 30 weeks and Canada Emergency Response Benefit payments covering 28 weeks. CRB eligibility required, among other things, at least a 50% reduction in average weekly income during the relevant periods. CERB eligibility required earnings below $1,000 during the payment periods and that the claimant stopped working or had reduced hours because of COVID-19 for at least 14 consecutive days.
The Canada Revenue Agency notified Cai in April 2024 that it was reviewing her eligibility, described documents she could submit, and warned that she might have to repay the benefits if she did not respond. After she failed to respond, the CRA found her ineligible. Cai requested a second review and submitted her 2019 T4A and her 2019 and 2020 tax returns.
The second reviewer called Cai three times on September 16 and 17, 2025, leaving voicemail messages that explained the purpose of the calls and requested a response by September 29. When Cai did not respond, the reviewer maintained both ineligibility determinations. Cai sought judicial review, alleging procedural unfairness and unreasonable decisions.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Battista dismissed both applications for judicial review. The Court held that the CRA provided the moderate level of procedural fairness required in the second-review process. Three voicemail messages communicating the reviewer’s concerns and allowing a reasonable response period were sufficient; fairness did not require the CRA to use another communication method or ensure that Cai actually responded.
The Court distinguished a prior case in which the reviewer had been unable to leave a voicemail and therefore knew the claimant was unaware of the concerns and the need for more information. Here, the reviewer was justified in believing that the concerns had been communicated successfully.
The ineligibility decisions were also reasonable. The tax returns and CRA records did not demonstrate the income reduction required for CRB. They likewise did not establish that Cai earned less than $1,000 during the CERB periods or stopped working or experienced reduced hours because of COVID-19 for at least 14 consecutive days. The Court dismissed the applications without costs and amended the style of cause to name the Attorney General of Canada as respondent.
Key Takeaways
- A moderate duty of procedural fairness can be satisfied by repeated, informative voicemail messages coupled with a reasonable deadline to respond.
- The CRA was not required to pursue a second communication method after successfully leaving three messages for the claimant.
- Tax filings showing annual income did not, without further supporting evidence, establish the period-specific income reduction and work interruption required for CRB and CERB eligibility.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that procedural fairness in a CRA benefits review requires a meaningful opportunity to respond, not proof that the claimant actually engaged with the reviewer. Whether voicemail attempts are sufficient will depend on whether the messages successfully communicate the agency’s concerns and the need for additional information.
It also underscores that claimants challenging COVID-19 benefit determinations must identify evidence addressing each statutory eligibility requirement. General tax and income records may be insufficient when eligibility turns on income or employment circumstances during particular benefit periods.