Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review focused on whether the CRA’s second-level decision denying Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) was procedurally fair toward a self-represented applicant.

• Central merits issue was whether the applicant proved at least $5,000 of eligible employment or self-employment income in 2019, 2020, or the 12 months before his first CRB application, as required by the Canada Recovery Benefits Act.

• The court refused to consider new income-related documents filed on judicial review because they were not before the CRA decision-maker and did not fit the limited exceptions for new evidence on judicial review.

• Procedural fairness arguments failed because the applicant had repeated notice of the income documentation required, was granted an extension, and still did not submit the requested proof by the final deadline.

• The decision was found reasonable, as the officer reviewed the tax assessments and supporting records, explained why several amounts were not proven eligible income, and concluded the $5,000 threshold was not met.

• The respondents (CRA, Minister of National Revenue, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) were successful; the application was dismissed with costs totalling $850 in this decision (plus $300 previously ordered).

Facts and outcome of the case

Background to the dispute

The case involves an application for judicial review brought by Razibul Haque, a self-represented taxpayer, against the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada. Mr. Haque had received Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) payments in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and later faced a CRA review of his eligibility. The CRA reconsidered his file and ultimately refused his CRB eligibility on the basis that he had not proven the minimum $5,000 of eligible employment or net self-employment income in 2019, 2020, or in the 12-month period preceding his first CRB application, as required under section 3(1)(d) of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act. After a first review resulted in denial, Mr. Haque sought a second review within the CRA. A benefits validation officer acted as the “Second Reviewer” and again concluded that the income threshold was not met, leading to a second denial dated May 26, 2022. It was this “Second Decision” that Mr. Haque challenged before the Federal Court.

The legal framework for CRB eligibility

The Canada Recovery Benefits Act set out the core eligibility requirement that a person must have had at least $5,000 in total income from specified sources, including employment and self-employment, in 2019 or in the 12 months preceding the date of the CRB application. The legislation also placed a clear burden on the applicant to provide information required by the Minister to substantiate an application and allowed the Minister to reconsider eligibility for benefits after they had been paid. In practice, this meant that Mr. Haque had to demonstrate, with proper documentation, that he met the $5,000 income threshold from eligible sources in the relevant period, and CRA officials were entitled to require proof beyond bare tax return entries or generalized assertions of cash income.

How the CRA reviews unfolded

Mr. Haque initially applied for and received 19 CRB payments of $1,000 every two weeks between September 27, 2020 and June 19, 2021, and then applied for CRB for an additional nine two-week periods up to October 23, 2021. The CRA opened a review and requested supporting documents such as bank statements and records of payments to substantiate his reported self-employment and business income. A first CRA reviewer contacted him and was told he had earned roughly $7,000 in 2019 from Amway, his own company and Lunetterie. Mr. Haque provided a T4A of $1,770 and some invoices but did not provide proof of deposit or other corroborating records; he also said he had been paid on prepaid credit cards but submitted no evidence of these payments. Despite repeated requests, the CRA did not receive the necessary bank statements or equivalent proof tying income to the relevant periods, and the first review decision of January 10, 2022 denied his CRB eligibility on the basis that he had not established the required $5,000 of income.

The second review and documentation issues

Mr. Haque then requested a second review on February 6, 2022 and submitted additional materials, including T4A slips for 2019 and 2020, Amway-related emails, invoices, and evidence of deposits to prepaid cards. The second reviewer, a CRA benefits validation officer, reviewed these materials alongside earlier documents and held a series of phone calls with Mr. Haque. During an April 4–5, 2022 call, the reviewer explained that the process was document-driven and that proof of earnings was needed, such as bank statements showing deposits, letters from clients confirming work performed, or a letter from an employer like Feejad with details of his income. Mr. Haque indicated that gathering bank statements might be difficult because he had closed his account, but he was advised that the bank should still maintain historical records and that he should try to obtain them or other corroborative evidence. By May 2, 2022, no additional documents had been received, so the reviewer called again, reminded him of the outstanding requests, and granted a further 15-day extension to May 16, 2022 to allow him to submit supporting documents, with the clear warning that the decision would be based on whatever evidence was on file by that date. No further documents arrived by the deadline. In the internal review report, the second reviewer analysed the various amounts claimed for 2019 and 2020—including Amway earnings, T4A amounts and Evente.com invoices—and explained why, without bank records or other confirmation, some items could not be accepted as proven income or allocated to the required period. On that basis, the reviewer concluded that Mr. Haque had not proven income of at least $5,000 from eligible sources in 2019, 2020, or the preceding 12 months and issued the May 26, 2022 Second Decision denying CRB eligibility.

New evidence and limits of judicial review

In the Federal Court proceedings, Mr. Haque filed an additional affidavit in September 2023 with multiple exhibits, including bank statements, client letters, tax notices of assessment and other income-related documents that had not been provided to the second reviewer. The Attorney General of Canada challenged the admissibility of this material, arguing that it had not been before the CRA decision-maker and was filed without the court’s leave. The court agreed and held that these new documents could not be considered on judicial review because they went directly to the merits of the CRA’s income assessment and did not fall within the limited, recognized exceptions that allow new evidence to be admitted. The court emphasized that its role is not to decide CRB eligibility afresh, but to review whether the administrative decision was reasonable and procedurally fair based on the record before the decision-maker at the time.

Procedural fairness analysis

On procedural fairness, Mr. Haque argued that his rights were breached because he had allegedly requested a much longer extension—about two months—to gather documents, but the second reviewer granted only 15 days, which he said was insufficient. The court examined the CRA call notes and found no evidence that such a two-month request had been made or refused. Instead, the notes showed that the reviewer clearly explained what documentation was missing, had communications with Mr. Haque over many months, and ultimately granted a further 15-day extension via the May 2, 2022 call while warning that the decision would follow based on whatever documents were received by May 16, 2022. The court held that Mr. Haque knew the case he had to meet and had a fair opportunity to provide the necessary evidence over a substantial period, starting as early as July 30, 2021, when CRA first explained the income threshold and the need for proof. Because he did not supply the requested bank records, corroborating client letters or equivalent proof within the time allowed, the court found no denial of procedural fairness in the CRA moving ahead with its second review decision after the extension expired.

Reasonableness of the CRA’s decision

On the merits, the court applied the reasonableness standard and assessed whether the Second Decision was justified, transparent and intelligible in light of the statutory scheme and the record before the reviewer. Mr. Haque’s main complaint was that the CRA did not accept his income tax notices of assessment and his own accounting of self-employment income as sufficient proof and demanded additional documentation, including bank statements and third-party confirmations. Relying on prior case law under the CRB regime, the court confirmed that a notice of assessment does not, by itself, prove that the reported income was actually earned or that it came from qualifying sources during the precise eligibility period. The court noted that the second reviewer had carefully broken down the amounts claimed—such as Amway income, supposed profit margins, Evente.com invoices and T4A amounts—and then explained, with reference to the documentation and bank records actually filed, which amounts could be verified and which could not. In doing so, the reviewer reasonably concluded that even on the most favourable reading of the verified figures, Mr. Haque’s proven income fell short of the $5,000 threshold, and that alleged cash earnings and uncorroborated amounts could not be counted without supporting documents. The court found no indication that the reviewer ignored relevant evidence or misapprehended the material before her, and it declined to reweigh the evidence or substitute its own view of the facts.

Ruling, outcome and costs

In the result, the court dismissed Mr. Haque’s application for judicial review and upheld the CRA’s Second Decision denying him CRB eligibility. The respondents—the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada—were the successful parties. On costs, the Attorney General of Canada had sought a higher tariff-based amount, but the court exercised its discretion to award $850 in costs in favour of the respondents for this decision, in addition to $300 in costs previously ordered in the cause in an earlier related ruling. There was no award of damages; the financial consequence was limited to these costs orders against the applicant.