Background
Bing Wang, a self-represented applicant, received Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) for periods between March 2020 and September 2020, and Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) from September 2020 through October 2021. After the CRA reviewed her eligibility and issued first-review decisions in December 2023 finding her ineligible — decisions she says she received no meaningful prior notice of — Wang requested a second review in July 2024. She submitted additional documents and representations in July 2024, July 2025, and September 2025.
The second review was assigned to a different CRA officer. Wang asserts she waited over a year before receiving substantive contact from that officer. During a September 3, 2025 telephone call — which she described as her first and only meaningful discussion with the Second Officer — Wang explained she had been on disability leave and needed time to obtain compensation statements from her employer, IG Wealth Management. The Second Officer set a deadline of September 17, 2025 — just 14 days away — to submit further materials. Wang uploaded bank statements and says she attempted to reach the Second Officer multiple times before the deadline, leaving voicemail messages explaining her situation and asking whether more documents were needed. The Second Officer made decisions on September 18, 2025, communicated by letters dated September 24, 2025, finding Wang ineligible for both CERB and CRB because she had not demonstrated at least $5,000 in qualifying income.
Wang applied for judicial review of those second-review decisions. She subsequently submitted employer compensation statements, T1 returns, and other materials, which she argued were the very documents she had been attempting to obtain before the deadline. The CERB decision also noted that a remission applied, meaning Wang would not need to repay those particular payments; the core dispute centered on the CRB and the underlying income-threshold finding.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Manson granted the application for judicial review on procedural fairness grounds, setting aside both the CERB and CRB second-review decisions and remitting the matters to a different CRA officer for redetermination. The Court found that the combination of circumstances — a lengthy delay before substantive CRA contact, a 14-day deadline imposed immediately after the first meaningful conversation with the officer, the applicant’s documented attempts to call the officer before the deadline, and the direct relevance of the missing documents to the sole determinative issue — deprived Wang of a meaningful opportunity to substantiate her eligibility claim.
The Court rejected the Respondent’s argument that the absence of a CRA note recording the Applicant’s calls or any extension request was a complete answer. Where an applicant alleges the officer simply did not answer or return calls, the lack of a CRA note memorializing unanswered voicemails proves nothing. The Court also noted that while the CRA’s internal guidance on deadline flexibility was not binding, it was relevant context showing the CRA itself recognized the practical importance of accommodation where a taxpayer needs time to gather documents. Careful review of an incomplete record does not cure a failure to afford a fair opportunity to complete it.
Having found a breach of procedural fairness, the Court did not address the reasonableness of the substantive eligibility findings. It declined Wang’s invitation to declare that she met the $5,000 income threshold, holding that the appropriate remedy was remittal — not a finding of eligibility — with an instruction that the reconsidering officer give Wang a reasonable opportunity to submit documents and representations on the income requirement. No costs were awarded.
Key Takeaways
- Procedural fairness in CRA benefit reviews requires that applicants be given a genuine, not merely nominal, opportunity to respond: a short deadline set immediately after the first substantive discussion, combined with unanswered calls and no flexibility, can constitute a breach even where the officer reviewed all documents actually received.
- The absence of a CRA note recording an applicant’s attempted calls is not determinative of whether those calls were made or received; where phone records support the applicant’s account, the evidentiary gap cannot simply be resolved against the applicant.
- Non-binding internal CRA guidance on deadline extensions is nonetheless relevant context for assessing the fairness of the process the officer actually applied.
- On judicial review for procedural unfairness, the remedy is typically remittal to a different decision-maker with proper procedural instructions, not a substituted finding on the merits.
Why It Matters
This decision is a practical reminder that administrative fairness obligations attach to the overall process, not just individual procedural steps viewed in isolation. CRA officers conducting CERB and CRB second reviews — and administrative decision-makers more broadly — cannot satisfy the duty of fairness by carefully reviewing an incomplete record if the incompleteness itself results from a process that denied the applicant a genuine chance to participate. The ruling is particularly significant for the large cohort of COVID-19 benefit recipients still navigating CRA redeterminations years after payments were made.
For practitioners advising clients in similar positions, the case underscores the value of preserving contemporaneous evidence of attempted communications — telephone records, screenshots of uploaded documents, and voicemail logs — as these can be determinative when a government agency’s own notes are silent on the issue.