Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review focused on a CRA second-review decision about Mulat Abaye’s eligibility for the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) for specified periods between September 27, 2020 and July 3, 2021.

• Record on review was confined to the materials before the second CRA officer; later documents, including a February 6, 2025 Notice of Redetermination and a February 11, 2025 employer letter, were excluded as improper fresh evidence.

• Application of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act criteria, including the 50 percent income-reduction requirement and the rule against quitting or voluntarily ceasing work without it being reasonable to do so.

• Procedural fairness was found satisfied because the applicant submitted written materials and the second officer contacted him by telephone and recorded his information.

• Substantive reasonableness turned on the internal coherence of the second officer’s findings for various CRB periods, particularly the treatment of periods 15 to 20 in light of the applicant’s carpentry training.

• The court allowed the application in part, set aside the second-review decision as unreasonable, remitted the matter to a different officer for reconsideration, amended the style of cause to name the Attorney General of Canada as respondent, and ordered no costs.

Facts and outcome of the case

The applicant, Mulat Abaye, applied for the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) for periods from September 27, 2020 to July 3, 2021. A first CRA officer determined that he was not eligible and advised him by letter dated January 22, 2024. The applicant provided additional submissions to the CRA on February 21, 2024, which the CRA treated as a request for a second review. A different CRA officer conducted this second review, considering the first officer’s notes, CRA income information for 2019 to 2021, and the applicant’s submissions received on October 12, 2022 and February 21, 2024. The second officer also spoke with the applicant by telephone on January 27, 2025 and told him that she would review his file.

Parties and nature of the proceeding

The proceeding is an application for judicial review brought by the applicant, Mulat Abaye, against the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada. The applicant is self-represented. Counsel for the respondent is Maitland Shaheen, with the Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario. The court noted that the applicant originally named the Canada Revenue Agency as respondent and amended the style of cause to substitute the Attorney General of Canada as the proper responding party.

CRA decision under review

By letter dated January 31, 2025, the CRA advised the applicant that he was ineligible for CRB for the periods of September 27, 2020 to October 10, 2020 and April 11, 2021 to July 3, 2021 on the basis that he quit his job voluntarily and did not have a 50 percent reduction in average weekly income compared to the previous year due to COVID-19. The letter contained a typographical error listing “April 11, 2020 to July 3, 2020,” but the record and the second officer’s notes made clear that the intended dates were April 11, 2021 to July 3, 2021. The second officer’s notes clarified that she found the applicant ineligible for the period of September 27, 2020 to October 10, 2020 because he had not experienced a 50 percent reduction in average weekly income due to COVID-19, and for the period of April 11, 2021 to July 3, 2021 because he had voluntarily quit his job to attend a training course. The second officer confirmed the applicant’s CRB eligibility for the intervening periods from October 11, 2020 to April 10, 2021.

Record, evidence, and procedural fairness

On judicial review, the court held that it was generally confined to the record before the second officer, subject to limited exceptions. The applicant submitted additional materials that were not before the second officer, including a CRA Notice of Redetermination dated February 6, 2025, a February 11, 2025 employer letter, and family identification documents. The court found that these materials related to the merits of the applicant’s CRB eligibility or were otherwise immaterial to the issues decided on the second review and did not meet the criteria for any exception, so they were not considered. The court concluded that procedural fairness required notice of the case to meet and a meaningful opportunity to provide information, and that this standard was met because the applicant was able to file submissions and the second officer contacted him by telephone and recorded the information received.

Reasonableness of the decision

The court reviewed the second officer’s application of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act. For period 1 (September 27, 2020 to October 10, 2020), the second officer compared the applicant’s earnings during that period, using the pay stubs he supplied, to his 2019 average weekly employment income drawn from CRA systems, calculated the 50 percent threshold, and determined that the applicant earned more than that amount, so the income reduction requirement was not met. For periods 2 to 14 (October 11, 2020 to April 10, 2021), the second officer accepted the applicant’s explanation that he took a leave of absence from his security job to care for his children and help them with online schooling and stated that he had a 50 percent reduction in his average weekly income compared to the previous year due to COVID-19. For periods 15 to 20 (April 11, 2021 to July 3, 2021), the second officer’s notes recorded the applicant’s statements that he quit his job to attend a six-week carpentry course and then obtained a job in that field in July 2021. The second officer concluded that the applicant quit his job voluntarily to pursue training rather than for COVID-related reasons and that the statutory requirement was not met for periods 15 to 20. The court found that, even accepting the second officer’s finding that the course was six weeks, her finding that the applicant was ineligible for 12 weeks due to a six-week training course was not internally coherent or rational and held that the decision was unreasonable.

Outcome and relief granted

The court allowed the application for judicial review in part. It set aside the second-review decision and remitted the matter to a different officer or reviewer for reconsideration in accordance with the court’s reasons. The court amended the style of cause to substitute the Attorney General of Canada as the respondent. The applicant sought costs, but the court exercised its discretion not to award costs, and no damages or monetary amounts were ordered.