Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Mr. Li was found ineligible for both CERB and CRB benefits for failing to meet the minimum $5,000 (before taxes) of net self-employment income threshold required under the applicable legislation.

• The CRA reasonably declined to accept self-prepared "behind the scenes" documentation, including an amended T776 Statement of Real Estate Rentals, as sufficient proof of income.

• Reasonableness was correctly identified as the standard of review for the CRA's substantive decisions, rejecting Mr. Li's argument that a correctness standard should apply.

• Oral communications between the CRA officer and Mr. Li were characterized as status updates, not separate reviewable decisions, and no contradiction was found between the officer's notes and the written decisions.

• Application of the Income Tax Act attribution rules to CERB and CRB eligibility was rejected, as those rules do not impact the distinct COVID-benefit legislation and requirements.

• No procedural unfairness was established, given that Mr. Li was fully informed of the eligibility criteria and afforded repeated opportunity to provide supporting documentation.

Background and facts of the case
Baozhong Li, who co-owned rental properties with his wife and received a portion of the rental income, applied for and received seven Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) payments between March 15, 2020, and September 26, 2020, as well as twenty-seven Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) payments between September 27, 2020, and October 9, 2021. To qualify for both benefits, applicants were required to have earned at least $5,000 (before taxes) of net self-employment income for 2019, 2020, or the 12 months before the date of their first claim for each benefit. Following a review, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) issued two decisions on July 25, 2024, concluding that Mr. Li did not meet this income eligibility requirement and was therefore not entitled to either benefit.
The Federal Court proceedings
Mr. Li filed applications for judicial review of the CRA's two decisions before the Federal Court. In a judgment dated February 21, 2025 (2025 FC 346, per Turley J.), the Federal Court dismissed both applications. The court found the CRA's decisions to be reasonable on two principal grounds: first, the CRA second review officer reasonably refused to rely on documentation prepared by Mr. Li — including an amended T776 Statement of Real Estate Rentals — to substantiate his claimed self-employment income in the relevant years; and second, Mr. Li failed to establish that the attribution rules under the Income Tax Act (ITA) had any bearing on the distinct CERB and CRB legislation and requirements.
The appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal
Mr. Li appealed the Federal Court's judgment to the Federal Court of Appeal, representing himself. He reasserted that the CRA had unreasonably failed to accept his "behind the scenes" documentation and had failed to respect the ITA attribution rules. He also argued that the court should apply a correctness standard of review to the CRA's substantive decisions, and that oral conversations with the CRA officer constituted separate, earlier decisions that contradicted the written decisions under review.
Standard of review and the oral decisions argument
The Federal Court of Appeal, in reasons delivered from the bench on March 24, 2026 (2026 FCA 62), confirmed that the Federal Court correctly identified reasonableness as the applicable standard of review for the CRA's substantive decisions, with alleged breaches of procedural fairness reviewable on a basis akin to correctness. The panel found Mr. Li's submission that a correctness standard should apply to the substance of the CRA decisions to be without merit. The court also found no merit in the argument regarding oral decisions, holding that the written decisions dated July 25, 2024 were the decisions under review, and that the oral communications were merely communications in which the CRA officer provided updates to Mr. Li as to the status of the second reviews. No contradiction was found between the officer's notes and the written CRA decisions.
Reasonableness of the CRA's decisions and procedural fairness
The Court of Appeal found no unreasonableness in the CRA's conclusions. The CRA officer had communicated with Mr. Li, documented their interactions, and considered his documentation prepared for purposes of the CRA's review, but concluded that it did not satisfy the income eligibility requirement for the CERB and CRB in the absence of additional documents demonstrating how much Mr. Li actually made. The court noted that the CRA officer is presumed to have considered all of Mr. Li's documentation and submissions, and found no evidence in the record that they failed to do so. With respect to procedural fairness, the court held that Mr. Li was fully informed of the case he had to meet and was given repeated opportunity to provide documentation to support his claim to self-employment income in the relevant periods. The officer's notes established the second CRA officer's thorough consideration of Mr. Li's documentation and arguments, demonstrating no unfairness in the process.
Ruling and outcome
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, with Justice Walker delivering the reasons on behalf of the panel comprising Justices Laskin, Locke, and Walker. The Attorney General of Canada was the successful party. No costs were awarded. The decision does not specify any particular monetary amount ordered against Mr. Li in connection with the CERB and CRB payments he received.