Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review focused on the reasonableness and procedural fairness of the CRA’s decision denying CERB eligibility.

• Dispute over whether the applicant’s evidence sufficiently proved $5,000 in self-employment income as required by law.

• The sufficiency of invoices and receipts as proof of income was central to the case.

• The applicant argued the CRA failed to properly inform her of required documentation, raising procedural fairness concerns.

• The court examined whether income tax assessments alone could establish eligibility for CERB.

• Consideration of whether compassionate grounds could influence eligibility under the CERB legislation.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties

Janna-Joy Goff, a self-employed individual operating a small wellness business, applied for and received several instalments of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) later initiated a compliance review, requiring proof that she had earned at least $5,000 in self-employment income in the relevant period. Goff did not initially submit the requested documents and, after several extensions and communications, the CRA found her ineligible for CERB. She sought a review and submitted additional documents, including receipts, an invoice, and amended tax assessments, but the CRA maintained that the evidence was insufficient.

Procedural history and legal issues

After an initial and first review, both of which found the documentation lacking, Goff requested a second review and provided further materials. The CRA’s second review officer again found the evidence insufficient, particularly noting that the invoice lacked critical details such as contact information and identifying characteristics. The officer also considered the applicant’s statements that she had no further documents to submit. Goff then sought judicial review of the CRA’s decision, arguing that the decision was unreasonable and that she had been denied procedural fairness because the CRA did not inform her that additional documentation was required.

Court’s analysis

The court examined whether the CRA’s decision was reasonable and whether procedural fairness was breached. It found that the CRA’s requirements for documentation were clearly communicated and consistent with established guidelines and case law. The court held that income tax assessments alone were not conclusive proof of qualifying income, especially in the context of self-assessment. The court also determined that the CRA was not obligated to alert the applicant to specific deficiencies in her evidence or to request additional documents beyond the initial notice.

Outcome and costs

The court dismissed the application for judicial review, concluding that the CRA’s decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. The court found no error in the CRA’s assessment of the evidence and no breach of procedural fairness. No costs or damages were awarded to either party. The Attorney General of Canada, represented by Lilian Mai Potvin, prevailed in the case, while Janna-Joy Goff, represented by Tatum Miller of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, was unsuccessful.