Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Application for judicial review of a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) second-review decision on the applicant’s eligibility for the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) was dismissed by the Federal Court.

• The applicant received CRB for 27 two-week periods but was found ineligible on review because she did not demonstrate a 50 percent reduction in average weekly income for a permitted reference period for reasons related to COVID-19, as required by section 3 of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act.

• The CRA Second Officer concluded that the applicant’s materials did not prove eligibility, noting that payroll summaries did not identify the applicant, some alleged manual pay cheques were unsupported by employer records, complete gross income information for the baseline period was missing, and there was no adequate explanation of how COVID-19 affected income in light of full-time and part-time post-secondary studies.

• The Court confined itself to the record before the Second Officer and declined to consider additional bank statements, calculations, and a post-decision letter because they were not before the decision maker and did not fit any recognized exception allowing extra-record evidence.

• Applying reasonableness review to the substantive decision and a correctness-type standard to procedural fairness, the Court held that the Second Officer’s reasons—found in the decision letter and contemporaneous notes—were transparent, intelligible, and responsive to the statutory eligibility requirements, and that there was no breach of procedural fairness given the notice and multiple opportunities provided.

• The application for judicial review was dismissed, and no costs were awarded, so no monetary amount was ordered in favour of any party.

Facts of the case

The proceeding is an application for judicial review in the Federal Court, docket T-1073-24, citation 2026 FC 130, heard in Toronto, Ontario, on January 21, 2026, with judgment issued at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 28, 2026. The style of cause is Sara Raza v The Attorney General of Canada. The presiding judge was the Honourable Mr. Justice Michael D. Manson.

The applicant, Sara Raza, was self-represented. The respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, was represented by counsel, Helli Raptis. The respondent’s solicitors of record were the Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

The applicant applied for and received the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) for 27 two-week periods between September 27, 2020 and October 9, 2021. The CRA later selected her for a CRB eligibility review and requested documents to support her eligibility.

The applicant did not respond to the CRA’s initial request. In May 2023, she provided the following materials: a letter dated May 5, 2023 requesting an extension of time to collect supporting documentation; an employment letter from FGL Sports Ltd./Canadian Tire dated April 11, 2023; printouts of her T4s for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years; a 2021 T4 from FGL Sports Ltd. identifying her; and a spreadsheet titled “FGL Sports Ltd. Payroll Summary” that did not identify the applicant.

By letter dated July 4, 2023, the CRA issued a first review decision finding her ineligible for CRB. The CRA concluded that she had not demonstrated a 50 percent reduction in average weekly income compared to the relevant reference periods for reasons related to COVID-19, and advised her that she could request a second review.

On July 6, 2023, the applicant requested a second review. A different CRA officer (the Second Officer) was assigned. In July 2023 and March 2024, she submitted additional materials, including: a letter disagreeing with the initial denial; an untitled spreadsheet of earnings from an unspecified source that did not identify the applicant; a resubmission of the April 11, 2023 FGL Sports Ltd./Canadian Tire letter; a printout of her 2020 T4; and a letter to CRA dated March 13, 2024.

In the March 13, 2024 letter, she referred to a missed call from CRA, a follow-up voicemail she left on March 13, 2024, and indicated that a comprehensive follow-up letter, including bank statements and endorsed by her authorized representative, would be forthcoming. That comprehensive follow-up letter was not provided.

Procedural history and the adjournment request

Before the hearing on the merits, there had already been delay in the proceeding. The Court noted that the matter had been marked by delay solely attributable to the applicant, including circumstances that prompted a status review and an order of Associate Judge Cotter dated August 28, 2025, which addressed the applicant’s delay and set a schedule to move the matter forward.

By motion received on January 16, 2026, the applicant sought an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for January 21, 2026. Justice Manson declined to grant the adjournment, finding that, having regard to the applicant’s inexcusable delays in moving forward with retaining counsel, there was no merit in granting a further adjournment. The hearing proceeded on the scheduled date.

Statutory and procedural framework

The Court described the governing legislation, the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020, c 12, s 2. Section 3 of the CRB Act sets out the eligibility criteria for the CRB, including the requirement that an applicant have a reduction of at least 50 percent in average weekly employment income or net self-employment income for 2019, 2020, or the 12-month period preceding the application, and that this reduction be for reasons related to COVID-19.

Section 6 of the CRB Act authorizes the Minister to require information to verify an applicant’s eligibility for CRB benefits.

The CRB Act does not prescribe internal CRA review procedures. The record showed that the CRA adopted a two-step administrative process: an initial eligibility review, followed by a second review by another officer if requested by an applicant within 30 days.

On standard of review, the Court held that the reasonableness standard applied to the Second Officer’s substantive findings, relying on Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, at paragraph 25. For procedural rights, the Court applied correctness or a standard with the same import, referring to Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69, citing Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24.

Scope of the record and additional materials

The Court reiterated that, on judicial review, it generally confines itself to the record that was before the decision maker. It recognized limited exceptions, including to provide general background information, to point out procedural defects not evident in the record, or to highlight a complete lack of evidence before the decision maker on a particular finding. The Court cited Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22, and Sharma v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 48.

The respondent argued that the applicant had submitted bank statements, calculations, and a post-Decision letter that were not before the Second Officer and therefore could not be considered on judicial review. The Court held that these additional materials went to the merits of her CRB eligibility and did not meet the criteria for any of the recognized exceptions. As a result, they were not considered in assessing the reasonableness of the Decision. The Court assessed reasonableness based on the record that was before the Second Officer.

Reasonableness of the Decision

The applicant argued that the Decision was unreasonable because she said the CRA ignored objective proof of an income reduction and provided only a conclusory statement in the letter communicating the Decision. She further submitted that CRA applied the wrong legal test by referring to an income comparison with the previous year.

The respondent relied on the Second Officer’s report and contemporaneous notes. The Court accepted that these notes formed part of the reasons, in accordance with Crook v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 1670, at paragraph 14. The Second Officer’s materials identified what had been reviewed and explained why the applicant’s documentation did not establish eligibility.

The Second Officer noted, among other things, that: the applicant’s submitted payroll summaries did not identify the applicant; she referred to manual pay cheques but provided no corresponding employer records and did not clarify why some payments would be made manually without documentation while other payments were documented; she did not provide complete gross income information needed for the required calculation for the relevant baseline period; and she did not explain how COVID-19 affected her income in light of her full-time and part-time post-secondary studies during the relevant years.

The Court stated that the burden is on the person claiming CRB benefits to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they meet the qualifying criteria of the CRB Act, citing Walker v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 381, at paragraph 55. The Court held that it was open to the Second Officer to find that the applicant’s incomplete or unverifiable documentation, combined with the absence of clarifying information about the impact of COVID-19 on income reduction, did not meet the statutory requirement.

The Court also noted that the Second Officer attempted to contact the applicant four times to obtain clarification—on February 27, 28, and 29, 2024, and on March 20, 2024—and did not receive the requested clarification.

On the alleged use of the wrong legal test, the Court held that the Second Officer’s concern remained the statutory one: whether the applicant had demonstrated a 50 percent reduction in average weekly income for a permitted reference period and whether the reduction was for reasons related to COVID-19. The Decision and the Second Officer’s report and notes did not show that an impermissible criterion was applied or that mandatory statutory requirements were ignored.

The applicant argued that the Decision was brief. The Court held that the brevity of the letter did not, by itself, make the Decision unreasonable. The question was whether the Decision, read together with the Second Officer’s notes, allowed the Court to understand why the outcome was reached and whether the Decision was responsive to the key constraints identified in Vavilov. The Court found that this standard was met.

The applicant also relied on six Federal Court decisions—Richardson v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 548; Nadeem v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 955; Pearson v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 774; Sjogren v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 1352; Vetrici v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FC 1191; and Cameron v Canada (Attorney General) (unreported)—and argued that they were materially indistinguishable from her case. The Court stated that some of these decisions were miscited and that the remaining decisions turned on their own facts, which were quite different from the facts of this matter. The Court held that those decisions were clearly distinguishable.

The Court concluded that the Second Officer’s reasons were transparent and intelligible and that the Decision was justified in relation to the record before the Second Officer and the eligibility requirements in the CRB Act, referring to Vavilov at paragraph 99.

Procedural fairness

On procedural fairness, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to notice of the case she had to meet and an opportunity to respond by providing information to substantiate that she qualified for CRB benefits.

The Court found that the applicant received notice that CRA required documents to support the CRB income-reduction criterion. She was given an initial opportunity to submit documentation, and a further opportunity during the second review, and she did provide further documents.

During the second review, the Second Officer attempted to contact the applicant on four occasions—February 27, 28, and 29, 2024, and March 20, 2024—leaving voicemail messages each time, to obtain clarifications and additional documentation. In her March 13, 2024 letter, the applicant indicated that she would provide more material the following week but did not do so.

On March 20, 2024, the Second Officer left a voicemail advising that if the applicant did not respond by the end of March 22, 2024, her file would be completed. The applicant did not respond within that period.

The Court concluded that there was no breach of procedural fairness.

Costs and outcome

In considering costs, the Court noted the applicant’s self-represented status. Justice Manson made no order as to costs.

In its conclusion, the Court held that the Decision was reasonable and that the applicant had established no breach of procedural fairness. The application for judicial review was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.