Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Mohammed Reda Jbara sought judicial review of the CRA's decision denying his eligibility for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) due to insufficient proof of the minimum $5,000 income threshold.

• Evidence submitted by the applicant — including handwritten invoices and joint bank statements — failed to credibly establish that his gross income met the CERB eligibility requirement.

• New documents (Schedules A1–A4) filed during judicial review were ruled inadmissible, as they were not part of the Court's Certified File and did not meet the recognized exceptions for admitting new evidence.

• Joint bank account statements listing the applicant and a second account holder (his father) made it reasonable for the officer not to presume that all transactions belonged solely to the applicant.

• The applicant, representing himself, bore the burden of proof and could not substantiate his claimed cash-based rideshare income with reliable records.

• The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision both reasonable and procedurally fair, with no costs awarded.

Background and facts of the case

Mohammed Reda Jbara, a self-represented applicant, filed a judicial review before the Federal Court of Canada challenging the Canada Revenue Agency's determination that he was ineligible for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). The CERB was established under the COVID-19 Emergency Measures Act, SC 2020 c 5, s 8, which enacted the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act. Eligibility required that a claimant qualify as a "worker" — meaning, among other things, that the individual had earned at least $5,000 in income in 2019 or in the twelve months preceding the date of their application.

Mr. Jbara claimed he was an independent rideshare driver who did not work through platforms such as Uber or Lyft and that he had earned at least $5,000 in 2019 or in the 12 months immediately preceding his CERB application. A CRA officer initially found him ineligible, and a second case officer confirmed that finding in a final letter dated February 12, 2025, supported by detailed notes forming part of the decision and reasons.

The evidence and its shortcomings

The documents the applicant had submitted to the officer included handwritten invoices, bank statements, emails related to his job search, and a request to adjust his T1 slip for the 2020 tax year to reflect an addition of $275 to his self-employment income. The officer thoroughly examined the evidence presented and concluded that it did not establish an income of at least $5,000. The bank statements presented a particular problem: they belonged to the applicant and another person named Mr. Hicham Jbara. It was reasonable for the officer not to presume that all the transactions belonged solely to the applicant. At the hearing, the applicant explained that the second person was his father and that his name was on the account because the applicant had held it since childhood and needed an adult to manage it. However, the circumstances relating to the second account holder were not presented to the officer. Additionally, the applicant had stated that his income came from cash and not wire transfers, yet the bank statements included certain wire transfers, and in the absence of further explanation, it was reasonable for the officer not to presume these had been made by ride-sharing customers. The officer also noted that prior to 2019, the applicant had never reported any business income.

Admissibility of new evidence on judicial review

Alongside his written submissions to the Court, the applicant filed four new documents — Schedules A1 through A4 — which he claimed had also been filed with the officer. Schedule A1 was a table printed on a single page without a header or other identifier, with dates ranging from May 6, 2019 to December 30, 2019, indicating reference numbers and amounts, for a total of $5,052, with a note indicating a total income of $6,555.65 over 11 months, expenses of $1,228.16, and a net income of $5,327.49. Schedule A2 was a table with dates ranging from January 10, 2020 to March 13, 2020, totaling $1,503.16. Schedule A3 was a smaller table listing $250 for telephone and $978.16 for gas and maintenance, for a total of $1,229.16. Schedule A4 was an undated letter addressed to the CRA stating that the above-mentioned documents were attached and represented the applicant's income. The respondent contested the inclusion of these documents, arguing they had not been presented to the officer and could not be included for the first time in judicial review proceedings.

Justice Azmudeh found that these schedules were not included in the Court's Certified File (CFF). The applicant referred the Court to a letter he had written to the officer on 25 December 2023 as proof the documents had been submitted, but the respondent argued the documents mentioned in that letter had been received and reviewed by the officer and were invoices and bank statements — not Schedules A1 to A4. The Court held that even if these documents had been presented to the officer, they would not render the analysis unreasonable, as they consisted of tables that do not refer to relevant documents. Citing University of Canada v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 CAF 22, and prior Federal Court rulings in CERB-related cases such as Datta v. Canada, 2022 FC 973, Lussier v. Canada, 2022 FC 935, and Maltais v. Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 817, the Court reaffirmed that new evidence is generally inadmissible on judicial review unless exceptional circumstances warrant it. The Federal Court of Appeal has recognized three exceptions: when new evidence contains general information to assist the Court, when it brings to light procedural flaws not detectable in the record, or when it highlights that the decision-maker had no evidence to support a particular conclusion. The applicant made no submissions as to whether any of these exceptions applied.

Standard of review and the applicant's burden of proof

Both parties agreed that the applicable standard of review was that of reasonableness, as established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. This type of review is restrained but nonetheless rigorous; the applicant must establish that the deficiency or flaw in the decision is sufficiently serious or significant to render the officer's decision unreasonable, and not every error or concern about a decision will warrant intervention. The applicant carried the burden of proving he met the eligibility criteria for the CERB, a principle upheld in Cantin v. Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 939, and Walker v. Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 381. The Court noted that, although taxpayers have the right to be paid in cash, they have the responsibility to keep sufficient records to substantiate cash payments to establish their eligibility for COVID-19 benefits, as stated in Zhang v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1761. The applicant failed to meet his burden because he did not present sufficiently credible or reliable evidence to the officer to establish that his gross income was at least $5,000.

The ruling and outcome

Justice Azmudeh found the officer's reasons to be consistent with the evidence presented. The Court noted that, fundamentally, the applicant disagreed with the officer's assessment of the evidence and considered it unreasonable for the officer not to have made assumptions to address the lack of evidence that existed in a self-reporting tax system; however, the Court cannot reassess the evidence before the decision-maker. The applicant had submitted invoices which, on their own, were insufficient to establish his income; he had also provided bank statements for a joint account which did not correspond to the invoices or the income he had declared; and he had explained that he was often paid in cash for his services, which could not be proven. Drawing parallels to Aryan v. Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 139, where, apart from the applicant's declaration on his tax documents, the Court had little evidence to support the applicant's income, the Court considered that in the absence of other evidence to establish income, it was reasonable for the officer not to accept a self-reported income assessment as the sole and conclusive proof of income. The application for judicial review was dismissed by the Federal Court in favor of the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, with no costs awarded.