Background
Ying Wang applied for and received benefits under five statutory schemes enacted to alleviate the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: the Canada Emergency Relief Benefit (CERB), the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB), the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (CRCB), the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit (CRSB), and the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit (CWLB). While the specific eligibility period depended on the benefit, in essence she had to have earned at least $5,000 in employment or self-employment income in the relevant time period.
In August 2022, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) undertook a review of her eligibility. On March 27, 2025, a CRA officer concluded on a Further Second Review that Wang was not eligible for any of the benefits she received, finding in each case that she had not demonstrated the requisite minimum employment or self-employment income during the applicable qualifying period. All determinations were communicated in a single decision letter.
Wang applied for judicial review. Strictly speaking she challenged five separate decisions under distinct statutory schemes, but the Court agreed with the parties that the ineligibility determinations were sufficiently connected to be challenged in a single application under Rule 302 of the Federal Courts Rules.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Norris held that the merits of the officer’s decisions were to be reviewed on a reasonableness standard, citing Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. The Court found the officer’s assessment of Wang’s 2021 income unreasonable because it failed to address a potentially corroborative piece of evidence: a cheque from Lucius Maitre dated September 28, 2021, in the amount of $5,000, along with evidence that the cheque had been deposited on the same date. The memo line stated “interlocking.” In her decision notes, the officer stated she was unable to determine whether this cheque (along with three others) related to self-employment income “due to discrepancies” but did not explain what those discrepancies were. The Court held this was a material issue and the absence of further explanation left the decision lacking in transparency, intelligibility and justification.
The Court noted this conclusion was fortified by the officer’s response to a written examination under Rule 99, in which she stated the cheque “was not supported by other documentation submitted by the applicant.” The Court found this response confirmed the officer misapprehended the evidence on a material point, since at least to the extent there was evidence the cheque had been deposited, it was supported by other documentation.
The Court was not persuaded that the officer’s determination that Wang was ineligible for the CERB was unreasonable, as that determination was based on her employment or self-employment income earned in 2019 or in the 12 months before she applied for that benefit. However, the failure to address evidence potentially demonstrating self-employment income in 2021 called into question the reasonableness of the officer’s decisions concerning Wang’s eligibility for the other benefits she received, but only to the extent that her eligibility depended on income she earned in 2021. The Court also found no merit to Wang’s grounds of review alleging a breach of procedural fairness, being satisfied that by the time the matter reached the Further Second Review, she knew the case she had to meet and had a fair opportunity to meet it.
Key Takeaways
- The Court allowed the application for judicial review in part, setting aside the March 27, 2025 decision with the exception of the determination that Wang is ineligible for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, and remitting the matters for redetermination by a different decision maker.
- The officer’s failure to address the September 28, 2021 cheque and deposit evidence rendered the assessment of 2021 income unreasonable for lack of justification, intelligibility and transparency.
- The CERB ineligibility determination was upheld because it was based on income earned in 2019 or the 12 months before application, unaffected by the 2021 cheque evidence.
- Wang shall be given a reasonable opportunity to provide the CRA with documentation and other information she wishes to rely on in the redeterminations.
- No costs were awarded; the style of cause was amended to name the Attorney General of Canada as the correct respondent.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the Federal Court’s application of the reasonableness standard under Vavilov to CRA benefit-eligibility determinations, emphasizing that administrative decision makers must address potentially corroborative evidence and explain material discrepancies. The ruling distinguishes between benefit determinations based on different qualifying periods, upholding the CERB decision while remitting the others for redetermination.
The case also addresses procedural aspects of judicial review, including the appropriateness of challenging multiple connected benefit determinations in a single application and the limits on supplementing administrative reasons through written examinations.