Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether Ms. Bui experienced a 50% reduction in average weekly employment income due to COVID-19, as required under subsection 3(1)(f) of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act

• Determination of whether the applicant voluntarily ceased work or reduced hours, and if so, whether it was reasonable to do so under subsection 3(1)(k)(i)

• Applicability of the reasonableness standard of review to CRA decisions denying Canada Recovery Benefit eligibility

• Evidentiary burden on applicants to establish CRB eligibility on a balance of probabilities

• Interpretation of "reasons related to COVID-19" in the context of voluntary work reduction to care for vulnerable family members

• Scope of judicial review in supervising administrative decision-makers without substituting the court's view on the merits

Background and parties

Susan Bui, a registered nurse, brought an application for judicial review challenging the Canadian Revenue Agency's decision to deny her the Canada Recovery Benefit. The CRB was implemented in support of Canada's economic recovery response to COVID-19, providing income support to eligible employed and self-employed individuals directly impacted by the pandemic for any two-week period beginning on September 27, 2020, and ending on October 23, 2021.

Eligibility requirements

To qualify for the CRB, subsection 3(1)(f) of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act required employees to have had a reduction of at least 50% in their average weekly employment income. Under subsection 3(1)(k)(i), employees must not have voluntarily ceased their work unless it was reasonable to do so.

Initial application and first decision

Ms. Bui's application was selected for review to validate its eligibility. On September 23, 2022, she submitted pay statements from September 2020 to October 2021, a letter from her employer dated September 23, 2022, and bank statements covering August 31, 2020, to August 31, 2021. On December 9, 2022, a CRA officer informed Ms. Bui that she was not eligible for the CRB because she did not have a 50% reduction in her average weekly income compared to the previous year due to COVID-19, and she was not working for reasons unrelated to COVID-19.

Second review

On or around January 5, 2023, Ms. Bui requested a second review. The second officer considered her original application, the submitted documents, internal CRA information about her income for 2019, 2020, and 2021, and newly submitted documents including her work schedule and an explanatory letter. In her letter, Ms. Bui explained that, out of concern for her elderly parents who were affected by underlying health conditions, she was not willing to increase her risk of acquiring COVID-19 from her workplace, potentially compromising her parents' health, and reduced her hours of work. She argued her concerns were directly attributable to COVID-19, and thus her reduction in hours was for "reasons related to COVID-19."

On May 1, 2023, the second officer informed Ms. Bui that she was not eligible for the CRB because she did not meet the Income Requirement and had voluntarily reduced her working hours, not for COVID-19 related reasons.

Arguments before the Federal Court

Ms. Bui, who was self-represented, argued that she took sporadic shifts to reduce the risk of infecting her vulnerable parents while maintaining minimum shifts to secure her future employment. She also contended she only claimed the CRB for weeks where she had no income whatsoever. She claimed the CRB's eligibility criteria were unclear and did not specify that work hours had to be reduced by the employer.

Court's analysis

The Federal Court applied the reasonableness standard of review. The court noted it exercises a supervisory role, ensuring administrative decision-makers act lawfully, reasonably, and fairly, without substituting its own view. The record showed the CRA reviewed all documents and submissions presented by Ms. Bui, internal entries, and her tax filings for 2019, 2020, and 2021.

Regarding the income reduction requirement, the second officer determined the additional documentation did not refute that Ms. Bui did not incur a 50% reduction in her weekly income. The officer found her gross income was greater in 2020 and 2021 than prior to COVID in 2019. The court found the CRA's findings that Ms. Bui failed to demonstrate a 50% reduction in weekly income were reasonable.

Regarding voluntary cessation, the second officer determined Ms. Bui had voluntarily reduced her working hours. In her letter dated January 5, 2023, she noted she had voluntarily reduced her working hours to help her parents, who did not live with her, with their living needs. The court disagreed with her claim that the eligibility criteria were unclear, pointing to subsection 3(1)(k)(i) which explicitly states persons are ineligible if they quit their employment or voluntarily ceased to work, unless it was reasonable to do so.

Ruling and outcome

The court found the CRA's reasoning was coherent, based on the evidence submitted, and justified in light of the applicable legislation. The CRA's conclusions that Ms. Bui was not eligible for the CRB because she did not incur a 50% reduction in her weekly income and voluntarily reduced her employment were reasonable, transparent, and justified. The application for judicial review was dismissed. The Attorney General of Canada was the successful party. Each party bore their own costs, and no monetary amount was awarded.