Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Determination of whether the applicant’s loss of income was for reasons related to COVID-19 as required by the benefit statutes.

• Assessment of the applicant’s eligibility for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (PCU), Canada Recovery Benefit (PCRE), and Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit (PCTCC) based on statutory cumulative conditions.

• Evaluation of documentary evidence, including T4A slips and bank cheques, to establish qualifying income and periods of employment.

• Consideration of the applicant’s admissions regarding cessation of work prior to the onset of the pandemic.

• Application of the reasonableness standard in reviewing the Canada Revenue Agency’s decisions under administrative law principles.

• Review of whether the applicant resided in a designated lockdown region at the relevant time for PCTCC eligibility.

Facts of the case

Huu Viet Tan Nguyen, a self-employed nail care technician in the Montreal region for over 15 years, applied for judicial review of three decisions by the Canada Revenue Agency (ARC) dated May 10, 2025. These decisions concerned his eligibility for the Prestation canadienne d’urgence (PCU), the Prestation canadienne de la relance économique (PCRE), and the Prestation canadienne pour les travailleurs en cas de confinement (PCTCC). Nguyen argued that he was eligible for these benefits because he had earned net self-employment income exceeding $5,000 in 2019 and was unable to work in 2020 and 2021 due to COVID-19-related government measures. Nguyen did not own a salon or have recurring clients; instead, he worked on call for various beauty salons and occasionally provided building cleaning services. His work was typically seasonal, with increased demand during the summer and holiday periods.

Nguyen claimed he could not work after March 2020 due to government-imposed sanitary measures, and that non-essential businesses, including salons, were closed. He stated he was unable to find work elsewhere during this period. His T4A slips showed $10,391 in commissions in 2019, with his only income in 2020 and 2021 coming from PCU and PCRE payments. In 2022, he received $600 from the PCTCC and earned $3,070 as a self-employed worker in 2021 and $932 in 2022. In total, Nguyen received $14,000 in PCU payments (March 15, 2020 to September 26, 2020), $24,600 in PCRE payments (September 27, 2020 to October 9, 2021), and $600 in PCTCC payments (January 2 to January 15, 2022).

Review of eligibility and evidence

The ARC requested supporting documents from Nguyen, who provided T4A slips for 2018–2021. On September 29, 2023, the ARC issued decisions stating Nguyen was not eligible for the PCU, PCRE, or PCTCC, citing that he had not earned at least $5,000 in employment or net self-employment income in the relevant periods. Nguyen contested these decisions, prompting a second review by the ARC’s Division de l’intégrité des prestations d’urgence. During this review, it was confirmed that Nguyen had stopped working in salons well before the pandemic began in March 2020, as salons no longer needed additional technicians. Cheques provided by Nguyen showed his last commission payment was in November 2019. The ARC agent concluded that Nguyen’s work stoppage was not due to COVID-19, but rather because salons stopped calling him for work prior to the pandemic. The agent also noted that for the PCTCC, Nguyen’s region was not designated as a lockdown region at the time of his application and that he had resumed part-time work in 2022.

Policy terms and statutory clauses at issue

Eligibility for the PCU, PCRE, and PCTCC was governed by the Loi concernant la prestation canadienne d'urgence (LPCU), Loi sur les prestations canadiennes de relance économique (LPCRE), and Loi sur la prestation canadienne pour les travailleurs en cas de confinement (LPCTCC), respectively. Each statute required cumulative conditions, including minimum income thresholds and that the cessation of work or income loss be directly related to COVID-19 or government-imposed lockdown measures. For the PCTCC, applicants also had to reside in a designated lockdown region at the time of application. The ARC and the Court found that Nguyen did not meet these statutory requirements, as his loss of work occurred before the pandemic and was not caused by COVID-19 measures.

Court’s analysis and outcome

The Federal Court, presided over by the Honourable Judge Duchesne, applied the reasonableness standard of review, as established in Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration) c Vavilov, 2019 CSC 65. The Court found that the ARC’s decisions were reasonable, rational, and justified in light of the facts and applicable law. The Court noted that Nguyen had not met his burden to show that the decisions were unreasonable. The findings of fact and law by the ARC were supported by the evidence and statutory requirements.

Ruling and conclusion

The Court dismissed Nguyen’s applications for judicial review. No costs were awarded, as the respondent withdrew the request for costs and the judgment stated that no costs would be ordered. No damages or monetary awards were granted.