Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Applicant Mostafa Adki challenged the CRA's determination that he was ineligible for the Canada Recovery Benefit due to failure to demonstrate a 50% reduction in his average weekly income compared to the previous year due to COVID.

• Central dispute involved whether two key documents (ROE and 2020 T4 from First Employer) were available to the Officer within the CRA system but were not reviewed.

• New evidence obtained after the CRA decision was deemed inadmissible under the general rule that courts may only consider the evidentiary record before the administrative decision maker.

• Procedural fairness arguments raised at the oral hearing for the first time were rejected, as arguments cannot be raised for the first time in oral submissions as a matter of procedural fairness.

• The Applicant bore the statutory onus under section 6 of the CRB Act to provide the Minister with any required information in respect of his CRB application.

• Court found the Officer reasonably determined the Applicant did not meet the income requirement, with the record including an admission by the Applicant that he lost his job due to performance issues and not for reasons related to COVID.

Background and employment history

Mostafa Adki worked for an electrical company as an Electrician Helper from July 12, 2020, until December 16, 2020, when he was laid off. He applied for and received the Canada Recovery Benefit in the periods he was unemployed between December 20, 2020, and July 31, 2021, before obtaining new employment on July 26, 2021.

The CRA eligibility review process

In April 2024, the CRA decided to validate the Applicant's applications. A first review of his eligibility for the CRB was conducted by an officer of the CRA who wrote to the Applicant by letter dated April 9, 2024, requesting further documents to support his eligibility. The Applicant responded by letter dated May 15, 2024, and provided bank statements from December 2, 2020, to February 2, 2022; a Record of Employment from the Second Employer; paystubs from July 2021 to January 2022 from the Second Employer; and paystubs from August 2020 to December 2020 from the First Employer. The reviewing officer contacted the Applicant on July 25, 2024, and requested additional documents from his First Employer, but the Applicant advised that he had not been able to obtain them. In a first level review decision dated July 30, 2024, an officer of the CRA determined that the Applicant did not meet the CRB eligibility criteria as he had not demonstrated a 50% reduction in his average weekly income compared to the previous year due to COVID. The T1Case notes highlight the need for the missing ROE from the First Employer.

The second level review and its outcome

The Applicant requested a second level review and submitted two sets of further documents which consisted of: additional bank statements for the period from February 6, 2020, to December 2, 2020; a letter explaining that he had made repeated attempts to obtain a ROE from his First Employer but had not received it, with attached screenshots showing his communications with the First Employer; a self-completed Statement of Business or Professional Activities for October 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, and January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020; self-completed T2125 forms for 2020 and 2021; and unofficial tax summaries showing the Applicant's gig work at Uber and Lyft for 2020 and 2021. According to T1Case notes provided by the Respondent, the Officer had a telephone conversation with the Applicant on June 11, 2025, in which the Applicant acknowledged that he had no prior work or income in 2019 or 2020 until he worked for the First Employer in late 2020 and that he was let go by the First Employer and replaced because he was too slow. In the Decision dated June 26, 2025, the Officer found the Applicant ineligible for the CRB on the basis that he had not demonstrated a 50% reduction in his average weekly income compared to the previous year due to COVID.

The Applicant's new documents and judicial review application

After the issuance of the Decision, the Applicant obtained an ROE and a 2020 T4 from the First Employer, which he attached as exhibits to his supporting affidavit on this application. According to the Officer's affidavit filed on this application, these documents were not made available to the Officer during the second level review. The Applicant sought judicial review claiming that two key documents that make out his eligibility were available to the Officer within the CRA system but were not reviewed and therefore the Court should remit the matter back to the CRA for redetermination.

The court's analysis on evidentiary admissibility

Justice Whyte Nowak agreed with the Respondent that the Court may only consider the evidentiary record that was before the administrative decision maker, which did not include the New Documents. The Applicant, who was represented by counsel, did not make submissions in the Applicant's Memorandum of Fact and Law as to why the New Documents should be allowed, nor did the Applicant provide a reply responding to the Respondent's written submission that the New Documents should not be admitted. At the hearing, the Applicant submitted for the first time that the New Documents should be admitted under an exception to the general rule that permits evidence relevant to an alleged denial of procedural fairness. The Court found that arguments cannot be raised for the first time in oral submissions as a matter of procedural fairness. The Court also noted that section 6 of the CRB Act puts the onus on an applicant to provide the Minister with any required information in respect of their CRB application. The only evidence on the record was that of the Officer who swore to the fact that the New Documents were not available and that in conducting the second level review, the Officer reviewed and considered the Applicant's income and deductions from income for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years as recorded on the CRA's computer system.

Ruling and outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. Based on the record that was before the Officer, Justice Whyte Nowak found that the Officer reasonably determined that the Applicant did not meet the income requirement upon which he was found ineligible. That record included an admission by the Applicant that he lost his job with the First Employer due to performance issues and not for reasons related to COVID. The Court was also satisfied that the Applicant was afforded procedural fairness, as the Applicant knew the case he had to meet including the importance of the ROE from his First Employer, and he had a chance to and did provide multiple submissions to the Officer both in writing and orally. The Respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, did not seek costs and none were awarded. The application for judicial review was dismissed without costs on January 14, 2026.