Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appellant was denied three COVID-19 income support benefits due to insufficient proof of meeting the $5,000 minimum income requirement.

• CRA relied on administrative guidelines that excluded undocumented deposits and unverified receipts as valid income evidence.

• The Federal Court addressed only one of the three benefit denials in its reasons, prompting the Federal Court of Appeal to reassess all three.

• The appellant's Charter claim under section 15 was dismissed due to lack of evidence and failure to give required notice.

• The Court emphasized that it cannot reassess evidence in judicial reviews and found CRA’s decision-making process reasonable.

• No costs were awarded as the Attorney General did not seek them.

Facts and outcome of the case

Jing You brought three judicial review applications to challenge decisions made by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) denying her entitlement to three federal COVID-related benefits: the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB), and the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit (CWLB). The CRA determined that she did not meet the eligibility threshold of $5,000 in net self-employment income, which is a condition across all three benefits.

While the Federal Court dismissed all three of her applications, it only provided reasoning for one: the denial of the CRB. This prompted the Federal Court of Appeal to revisit the matter in full, applying a de novo analysis due to the Federal Court’s lack of reasons for two of the applications. The appellate court reviewed the case under the administrative law principle of reasonableness, deferring to CRA’s assessment unless it was clearly flawed.

CRA’s denial was grounded in its internal guidelines, which specify that credible documentation—such as receipts, financial registries, or sales records—is needed to verify self-employment income. Ms. You submitted tax filings and some bank statements, but these lacked detail about the source of the income. CRA concluded that the evidence did not sufficiently prove she met the income threshold.

The appellate court found no legal or procedural errors in CRA’s decision-making process. It emphasized that the CRA acted within its discretion and guidelines and that it had even asked Ms. You for further evidence, which was not adequately provided. Ms. You’s argument that the order of benefit application review affected her eligibility was also rejected, as her net income fell below the required threshold regardless.

Ms. You also raised a constitutional challenge under section 15 of the Charter, alleging unequal treatment. However, the Court held that there was no evidentiary basis for the claim and noted that she failed to give formal notice to the Attorneys General as required under section 57 of the Federal Courts Act.

Ultimately, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Attorney General did not seek costs, and the Court confirmed that none would be awarded.