Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review focused on the reasonableness of the CRA’s denial of Canada Recovery Benefit eligibility.

• Dispute over whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence of qualifying income, particularly cash earnings from self-employment.

• Admissibility and weight of tax documents, such as notices of assessment, in establishing eligibility for benefits.

• Procedural fairness concerns, including alleged bias and adequacy of CRA communications.

• Limitation on considering evidence not before the original decision-maker during judicial review.

• Application of statutory criteria under the Canada Recovery Benefits Act and relevant standards of administrative law.

Facts of the case

Ms. Supriya Dhiman applied for the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) in 2020, claiming eligibility based on income from self-employment as a child-carer and commissions earned from selling Amway products. She received CRB payments from October 2020 to August 2021. The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) later initiated a review of her eligibility, questioning whether she met the statutory requirement of at least $5,000 in employment or self-employment income in 2019, 2020, or the 12 months preceding her application. Ms. Dhiman submitted self-statements, a notice of assessment, and bank statements as evidence. However, her cash earnings from child-care were not deposited in a bank account, and there was no evidence of invoices or contracts for her services.

Policy terms and statutory framework

The case centered on the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, S.C. 2020, c. 12, s. 2, specifically paragraph 3(1)(d), which requires applicants to show at least $5,000 in income from employment, self-employment, or certain benefits within the relevant period. The court also referenced the Federal Courts Rules regarding the proper respondent and the standards of review for administrative decisions, applying the reasonableness standard from Vavilov and the procedural fairness standard from Khosa.

Procedural history and evidence

After the initial CRA decision found her ineligible, Ms. Dhiman challenged the outcome through judicial review (T-525-24), which resulted in the decision being set aside due to a procedural fairness issue and the matter being remitted for redetermination. Upon reconsideration, the CRA again found her ineligible, relying on the same evidence. The officer noted the lack of documentation for cash earnings, absence of contracts or invoices, and the inability to separate her earnings from other funds in a joint bank account. Ms. Dhiman argued that her notice of assessment should suffice as proof of income, but the CRA and the court cited case law establishing that such documents are not conclusive for benefit eligibility.

Arguments and legal issues

Ms. Dhiman contended that the CRA’s decision was unreasonable and that she had provided all necessary information. She also raised concerns about procedural fairness, alleging bias and inadequate communication from the CRA, particularly the use of phone calls rather than written requests for information. The CRA argued that the decision was reasonable and that there was no breach of procedural fairness. The court addressed whether documents not before the original decision-maker could be considered on judicial review, concluding that exceptions did not apply in this case.

Ruling and outcome

The Federal Court held that the CRA’s decision was reasonable and met the required legal standards of justification, transparency, and intelligibility. The court found no breach of procedural fairness or evidence of bias. The application for judicial review was dismissed, with no costs awarded.