Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review was sought for a CRA decision denying CRB eligibility based on income thresholds.

• The central legal issue was whether the Applicant met the $5,000 qualifying income requirement within the correct time frame.

• The Applicant mistakenly applied CERB eligibility timing to her CRB application, leading to confusion.

• CRA’s second reviewer clarified eligibility periods and found income earned fell short for CRB.

• The Court applied the Vavilov reasonableness standard and found no breach of procedural fairness.

• New evidence submitted post-decision was deemed inadmissible and excluded from review.

Facts and outcome of the case

The case involves a judicial review initiated by Dianne Habaragamuwage Peiris challenging a decision by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The dispute arose after the CRA denied her eligibility for the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB), one of several COVID-19 relief benefits. Ms. Peiris had previously applied for and received benefits under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit (CWLB), but her CRB claim was rejected. She contended that she had earned over $5,000 in eligible income across 2019 and 2020, believing this met the statutory threshold.

The issue turned on the timing and categorization of her income. The CRA requires the qualifying income for the CRB to fall entirely within one of three periods: calendar year 2019, calendar year 2020, or the 12 months immediately preceding the application date. Ms. Peiris argued her income — spread across mid-2019 to early 2020 — satisfied the requirement. However, much of it fell outside the CRB's relevant period. Her misunderstanding stemmed from conflating the eligibility periods of CERB with those of CRB.

The CRA’s first reviewer found her ineligible, concluding her income failed to meet the CRB's requirements in any single qualifying period. A second reviewer later reassessed the case, confirming the same outcome after clarifying to the applicant how the benefit periods and criteria differed between CERB and CRB. The second reviewer identified that only $3,481.37 fell within the relevant 12-month window prior to the CRB application — well below the $5,000 threshold.

Ms. Peiris challenged this finding, raising several procedural fairness concerns and attempted to introduce new evidence, including reassessments and unsworn documents. The Court rejected these materials as inadmissible, referencing settled principles that judicial review must be limited to the record before the original decision-maker unless narrow exceptions apply, which were not met here.

Applying the reasonableness standard from Vavilov, the Federal Court held that the decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible. The Court found no procedural unfairness, noting the applicant had multiple opportunities to present her case, including discussions with CRA agents and a 15-day window post-call to submit additional materials.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review, siding with the Attorney General of Canada. While costs were sought by the Respondent in line with the Federal Courts Tariff, the Court exercised discretion to reduce this to a modest $500, considering the Applicant’s self-representation and the confusion around the benefit time frames.