Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Challenge centered on judicial review of CRA decisions denying pandemic-related benefits.

• CRA determined the appellant failed to meet the $5,000 income eligibility requirement.

• Appellant submitted reassessed tax documents not available during original CRA review.

• Court excluded new evidence, applying administrative law limits on post-decision records.

• Alleged procedural unfairness due to language barriers was dismissed based on the record.

• Appeal was dismissed and reduced costs of $500 were awarded to the respondent.

Facts and outcome of the case

Irina Elykova appealed a Federal Court judgment that upheld two Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) decisions denying her eligibility for the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) and the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit (CWLB). The CRA found she had not demonstrated the required minimum income of $5,000 from employment or self-employment in 2019, 2020, or the 12 months preceding her applications. These benefits were provided under the Canada Recovery Benefits Act and the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit Act, respectively.

The CRA’s conclusions followed two separate internal reviews. Ms. Elykova subsequently filed amended tax returns, resulting in notices of reassessment which she believed demonstrated her eligibility. However, these reassessments occurred after the CRA decisions were issued. She argued before the Federal Court that the CRA was unreasonable in not considering the corrected tax data and that its process was procedurally unfair due to her limited English proficiency and reliance on unannounced phone calls from reviewers.

The Federal Court rejected these arguments, ruling that the new tax information could not be considered under well-established principles limiting judicial review to the administrative record before the decision-maker. It also found the CRA’s process procedurally fair, noting that Ms. Elykova had been informed of the case she needed to meet and had several opportunities to submit relevant documents, including with the assistance of her accountant.

On appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. The court confirmed that the Federal Court correctly applied the reasonableness standard, as set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, and the procedural fairness test. The appeal was dismissed.

The Attorney General of Canada sought $2,000 in costs. However, using its discretion under Rule 400 of the Federal Courts Rules, the court reduced this to $500, considering the case circumstances. No damages were awarded.