Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdiction over CERB and CRB benefit decisions rests exclusively with the Federal Court, not the Tax Court of Canada.

• Appellant’s income eligibility claim was based on non-traditional income (payments-in-kind for childcare services).

• CRA denied benefits on the basis that the appellant had not met the $5,000 income threshold.

• The Federal Court found the CRA’s decision procedurally unfair and remitted the matter for redetermination.

• The appellant sought a directed result on eligibility, which the Court rejected due to lack of conclusive evidence.

• Costs were awarded to both parties at different stages, but the appeal was ultimately dismissed with costs against the appellant.

Facts and outcome of the case

The appellant, Grigore Vetrici, challenged decisions by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) denying his applications for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB). These benefits were designed to provide income support to Canadians affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The CRA denied his applications at the first review stage, claiming he had not earned the required minimum of $5,000 in employment or self-employment income in the relevant statutory periods.

Mr. Vetrici requested a second-level review, which again concluded he was ineligible. He then brought an application for judicial review before the Federal Court, arguing that the CRA’s decisions were procedurally unfair and unreasonable. The basis of his eligibility claim was that he had received income in the form of payments-in-kind for providing childcare services.

The Federal Court agreed with Mr. Vetrici that the CRA’s second-level decisions were procedurally unfair and unreasonable. However, the Court declined to issue a directed result in his favor, finding that eligibility was not a foregone conclusion. It noted that the appellant’s evidence was not conclusive and that he intended to submit additional material. The matter was therefore remitted back to the CRA for reconsideration. The Federal Court awarded the appellant $150 to cover his disbursements.

On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, Mr. Vetrici raised three main issues. He argued that only the Tax Court of Canada had jurisdiction to review the CRA’s income determination. The Court rejected this, affirming that judicial review of federal administrative actions—such as CRA benefit decisions—falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court, not the Tax Court, unless Parliament expressly provides otherwise. This position was supported by the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Dow Chemical v. Canada.

Mr. Vetrici also claimed the Federal Court erred by failing to apply the correct standard of review when refusing to direct a specific outcome. The Court of Appeal dismissed this, explaining that judicial remedies are discretionary and not subject to the same administrative law standards as the underlying decisions themselves. The Federal Court was found to have applied the correct legal framework and made no overriding or palpable errors.

Lastly, the appellant argued that the Federal Court should have awarded him higher costs due to the effort he invested. The Court of Appeal found this unpersuasive, noting that the CRA had conceded its decisions were flawed and that the only reason the matter continued was the appellant’s request for a directed result. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against Mr. Vetrici. The exact amount of appellate costs was not specified in the judgment.