Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Yuhan Zeng challenged the CRA's denial of Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (CRCB) for 26 one-week periods between September 27, 2020 and March 27, 2021.

• Her child was never enrolled in any daycare or facility before or during the Benefit Period, failing to satisfy the requirements under section 17(1)(f) of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act.

• The CRA Officer found Ms. Zeng ineligible because she was not caring for a child under 12 who was unable to attend a school, daycare, or care facility for reasons related to COVID-19, nor was a usual caregiver unavailable due to the pandemic.

• New evidence regarding a neighbour who previously watched her child was raised at the hearing but was not before the Officer and could not be considered on judicial review.

• Procedural fairness was upheld as Ms. Zeng was informed of the case against her and given additional time to submit supporting documents.

• Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the Federal Court found the Officer's decision justified, transparent, and intelligible.

Background and facts of the case

Yuhan Zeng, a freelance piano teacher and a single mother of a toddler, applied for the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (CRCB) for 26 one-week periods between September 27, 2020 and March 27, 2021. Ms. Zeng wanted to enrol her child in daycare so she could teach piano. However, due to the complications arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic, she was unable to find a daycare that would accept her child. She submitted a written note to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) explaining that her child was unable to attend daycare because the daycares in which she intended to enroll her child had closed due to COVID-19. Her submissions also included correspondence between Ms. Zeng and a prospective daycare as well as additional piano lesson invoices to substantiate her income, which was not in dispute.

The CRA review process

On September 20, 2023, a CRA Officer spoke with Ms. Zeng by phone and asked who her child's previous caregiver was. Ms. Zeng responded that she was the caregiver before and during COVID-19. The Officer advised that because Ms. Zeng was the child's primary caregiver and that her child's regular services were not affected by the pandemic, the CRCB was not the correct benefit for her. Ms. Zeng was given additional time to gather and submit documents as requested, and the Officer considered everything that was before her before making her final decision on November 1, 2023. The Officer ultimately found that Ms. Zeng was not eligible for the CRCB because she was not caring for a child under 12 years old or a family member because they were unable to attend their school, daycare, or care facility for reasons related to COVID-19, or the individual who usually provided care was not available for reasons related to COVID-19.

The statutory framework under the Canada Recovery Benefits Act

The central provision at issue was section 17(1)(f) of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020, c 12, s 2. Under this section, a person is eligible for the CRCB if they have, as a self-employed person, reduced the time devoted to their work by at least 50% of the time they would have otherwise worked in that week because they cared for a child under 12 years of age and: (A) the school or other facility that the child normally attended was, for reasons related to COVID-19, closed, open only at certain times or open only for certain children; (B) the child could not attend the school or other facility for specified COVID-19-related health reasons; or (C) the person who usually cared for the child was not available for reasons related to COVID-19. Ms. Zeng accepted that she was her child's sole caregiver and that her child did not attend any daycare or facility before or during the Benefit Period. The Court found that, therefore, there was no facility that "the child normally attended" and that the legislation is limited to providing benefits to those whose child was already enrolled in a school or facility.

New evidence and its admissibility

During the Federal Court hearing, Ms. Zeng stated that prior to COVID-19, she sometimes left her child in a neighbour's care to teach piano, and that because of the COVID-19 rules, the neighbour became unavailable during the pandemic. However, this information had never been shared with the CRA Officer who made the Decision. Madam Justice Azmudeh noted that, regardless of whether the neighbour's help would amount to a facility "the child normally attended," this information was not before the Officer to be assessed, so it does not impact the reasonableness of the decision. As a general rule, the Court cannot consider new evidence not before the Officer, and Ms. Zeng's arguments did not point to any exception to this rule.

The Court's ruling and outcome

The Federal Court, applying the reasonableness standard of review as established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, found that the Officer's decision was based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and was justified in relation to the facts and law. The Officer thoroughly reviewed the information Ms. Zeng had provided and applied the law to her circumstances. While the Court expressed sympathy for Ms. Zeng's situation, noting it had no reason to doubt that she honestly believed she qualified for a benefit intended to relieve parents and caregivers, Ms. Zeng's disagreement with the Decision did not make it unreasonable. The Court also found that the Officer reached her decision in a procedurally fair manner, as Ms. Zeng knew the case to meet and was given the opportunity to meet it. Accordingly, Madam Justice Azmudeh dismissed the application for judicial review in favour of the Respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, without costs. No specific monetary amount was awarded or ordered, as the ruling simply upheld the CRA's original denial of CRCB benefits.