Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Andrew Pless was found ineligible for the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) and Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit (CWLB) due to failure to meet minimum income requirements.

• Exclusion of the appellant's August 1, 2024 affidavit was upheld as it was not duly served under Rule 306 of the Federal Courts Rules, despite an extension of time granted for the application record under Rule 309.

• Reliance on income tax returns by the CRA Officer was deemed relevant and reasonable, even though such returns are not conclusive proof of income for benefit eligibility purposes.

• The appellant's challenge to the application of carried-forward expenses in calculating his net income was rejected as the Court found the CRA Officer's approach not unreasonable.

• Procedural fairness was not breached, as Mr. Pless knew the case he had to meet, was given an opportunity to respond, and had an impartial decision maker consider his case.

• An argument that prior receipt of benefits created a substantive right to retain them was dismissed, as procedural fairness cannot give rise to substantive entitlements.

Background and facts of the case
Andrew Pless applied for and received the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) and the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit (CWLB), two federal benefit programs administered by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). Following a review, a CRA Officer determined that Mr. Pless had not met the minimum income requirements for either benefit and found him ineligible. Mr. Pless then applied for judicial review of the CRA Officer's decisions at the Federal Court. The Federal Court dismissed his applications in a decision cited as 2025 FC 252. Dissatisfied with that outcome, Mr. Pless appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, where the matter was heard at Toronto, Ontario on March 23, 2026, before Justices Laskin, Locke, and Walker. Mr. Pless represented himself in the appeal, while the Attorney General of Canada was represented by counsel Colin McArthur and Randy Ramoodit.
Issues raised on appeal
Mr. Pless advanced three arguments before the Federal Court of Appeal. First, he contended that the Federal Court erred in excluding his affidavit dated August 1, 2024, arguing that an extension of time had been granted by Associate Judge John C. Cotter and that the affidavit merely reiterated information already before the CRA Officer. Second, he challenged the substantive reasonableness of the CRA Officer's conclusion that he had not met the minimum income requirements, taking particular issue with the reliance on his income tax return and the application of expenses carried forward from previous years. Third, he argued that it was procedurally unfair to deny him the CRB and CWLB after having given him those benefits for a period of time without sufficient warning of the consequences of a later finding of ineligibility.
The affidavit exclusion
The Court of Appeal found that the extension of time granted by Associate Judge Cotter related solely to the deadline for filing Mr. Pless's application record pursuant to Rule 309 of the Federal Courts Rules (S.O.R./98-106). It did not constitute permission to include in that application record an affidavit that had not been previously duly served as provided for in Rule 306. As such, the Federal Court was correct to exclude the August 1, 2024 affidavit on the basis that it was submitted late. The Court further noted that Mr. Pless's claim that the affidavit simply repeated information already on file only underscored its redundancy and that Mr. Pless had not indicated specifically how his argument at the Federal Court was impaired by the exclusion of his affidavit.
Reasonableness of the CRA Officer's decisions
Applying the standard of reasonableness and stepping into the shoes of the Federal Court as outlined in Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 559 at paras. 45–46, the Court of Appeal assessed the merits of the CRA Officer's decisions. While it acknowledged that income tax returns are not conclusive proof of income for the purposes of the CRB and the CWLB, the Court found them to be relevant and concluded there was nothing unreasonable in the CRA Officer's reference to Mr. Pless's income tax return. The CRA Officer did not indicate that she felt bound by Mr. Pless's return. Similarly, Mr. Pless argued that he had no expenses for the purposes of eligibility and that the CRA Officer determined his net income was insufficient by applying expenses carried forward from previous years. The Court was not convinced that the CRA Officer acted unreasonably in this regard.
Procedural fairness
On the question of procedural fairness, the Court of Appeal referred to the principles set out in Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69, [2019] 1 F.C.R. 121 at para. 41, emphasizing that procedural fairness concerns procedure and cannot give rise to substantive rights. The essential inquiry is whether the affected party knew the case to be met, had an opportunity to respond, and had an impartial decision maker consider the case fully and fairly. The Court found that these requirements were met. Mr. Pless's argument on this point essentially sought a substantive right to keep benefits to which the CRA Officer reasonably concluded he was not entitled. His contention that he would have had to be represented by a lawyer to successfully challenge the impugned decisions did not alter the reasonableness of that conclusion, nor did it demonstrate that he was unaware of the case he had to meet or was denied an opportunity to respond.
Ruling and outcome
For the foregoing reasons, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Pless's appeal on all three grounds. The Court ordered costs in favour of the successful party, the Attorney General of Canada (the Respondent), fixed in the all-inclusive amount of $250.