Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Eligibility for the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) depended on net, not gross, self-employment income.

• The Applicant’s misunderstanding of the difference between CERB and CRB eligibility criteria was central to the dispute.

• The judicial review focused solely on the reasonableness of the Officer’s CRB decision.

• Section 3(2) of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, requiring net self-employment income, was determinative.

• Settlement communications were struck from the record as inadmissible under Rule 422 of the Federal Courts Rules.

• The style of cause was amended to name the Attorney General of Canada as the proper respondent.

Facts of the case

Abdul Baseer Hai, a pensioner who also drove for Uber, applied for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) in 2020 and continued to receive funds until October 2021. The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) reviewed his eligibility and found him ineligible for both benefit streams. After a second review on September 20, 2023, his ineligibility was upheld. A fresh second review on June 20, 2024, determined that Mr. Hai was not eligible for either benefit, but the Officer found he qualified for a remission order for CERB, allowing him to keep the CERB funds. The remission order did not apply to the CRB funds. At the judicial review hearing, the only contested decision was the Officer’s determination regarding CRB eligibility.

Policy terms and legislative framework

The Canada Recovery Benefits Act, S.C. 2020, c. 12, s 2, governed the CRB. Section 3(2) of the Act specifies that for self-employed individuals, income is defined as revenue from self-employment less expenses incurred to earn that revenue. The parties did not dispute that Mr. Hai made over $5,000 in gross, but not in net, income during the relevant periods. The Applicant stated he did not realize that a different rule applied to CRB than to CERB, where gross income had previously been accepted.

Judicial review and analysis

The only issue before the Court was the reasonableness of the Officer’s CRB decision. The standard of review was reasonableness. The Court found no factual dispute regarding the Applicant’s income. The Officer relied on the Applicant’s tax documents, which showed that his net self-employment income did not meet the $5,000 threshold required by section 3(2) of the CRB Act. The Applicant’s frustration with the different eligibility criteria between CERB and CRB was acknowledged, but the Court found that the Officer applied the correct legal standard and had no discretion to consider gross income.

Procedural and evidentiary matters

The style of cause was amended to reflect the Attorney General of Canada as the respondent, in accordance with Rule 303(2) of the Federal Courts Rules. The Respondent’s request to strike parts of the Applicant’s record containing settlement communications was granted, and Exhibits B and C of the Applicant’s affidavit were struck as inadmissible under Rule 422.

Ruling and outcome

The application for judicial review was dismissed. The Attorney General of Canada was the successful party. No costs were awarded, as the judgment was issued without costs.