Date: 20240702
Docket: T-1988-23
Citation: 2024 FC 1039
Vancouver, British Columbia, July 2, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Fuhrer
BETWEEN: |
JAE CHUN LEE |
Applicant |
and |
Canada Revenue Agency |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Jae Chun Lee, seeks judicial review of second reviews (confirming the first reviews) by the Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] that find him ineligible for Canada Emergency Response Benefit [CERB] and Canada Recovery Benefit [CRB] payments that he received during the Covid-19 pandemic.
[2] With the assistance of an interpreter who was affirmed at the outset of the hearing, Mr. Lee (who speaks Korean) argued that he meets the entitlement threshold to the CERB and CRB payments. While I am sympathetic to Mr. Lee’s plight, facing as he does the prospect of having to repay these benefits, the Court generally has limited discretion on judicial review to provide most of the specific relief Mr. Lee seeks, namely, to be reconsidered and qualified for CERB and CRB, to not have to return the payments and to avoid legal action.
[3] Instead, the Court can consider, as Mr. Lee also has requested, whether to set aside the determinations and return the matter to the CRA for another review. In rare cases, the Court can order a directed redetermination but I find that this is not one of those cases. Mr. Lee has not persuaded me that the second reviews were unreasonable or procedurally unfair.
[4] This judicial review thus will be dismissed. My reasons follow.
II. Analysis
A. The second reviews were not unreasonable
[5] I am not persuaded that the CRA second reviewer made any reviewable error.
[6] Mr. Lee asserts that he contracted with a company called New Pioneer Construction [New Pioneer] in 2019 for an interior paint job. He received an initial payment of $4,657.01 in May and was told this meant his gross pay was about $6,000, which he later declared as income on his tax return for 2019 on the advice of his accountant.
[7] New Pioneer’s owner disappeared after the first payment; the project was abandoned and Mr. Lee did not receive any other payments. While he looked for other work, before and during the pandemic, he did not find anything.
[8] Mr. Lee applied for and received CERB payments for about 6 months in 2020 followed by CRB payments for just under 1 year from 2020 to 2021. He argues that using a “reverse calculation”
based on his asserted net payment of $4,657.01, he meets the minimum eligibility threshold of $5,000 gross pay for the CERB and CRB payments.
[9] The second review reports acknowledge that Mr. Lee received a payment of $4,657.01 but indicate that “[n]o T4 was sent out.”
The reports also note that because the contract Mr. Lee signed was for contract work, there would no need for deductions for employment insurance or pension; thus, without any documentation establishing the gross income, the reviewer could not accept the attested amount as net pay.
[10] Further, Mr. Lee lost his contract job in May 2019 and did not have any luck finding other employment prior to his first CERB payment in 2020. In other words, his loss of employment was not as a result of the pandemic, which requirement was relevant to the CERB payments.
[11] Noting that the second review reports contain the reasons for the CRA’s denial of Mr. Lee’s entitlement to the CERB and CRB payments, I find that Mr. Lee has not met his onus of showing that the second reviews are unreasonable: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at para 100. In my view, they provide coherent and rational reasons that are justified having regard to the record that was before the reviewer and the applicable program requirements: Vavilov, above at para 104.
[12] See Annex “A”
for relevant legislative provisions under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act, SC 2020, c 5 and the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020, c 12, including the eligibility requirements.
B. The second reviews were not procedurally unfair
[13] I find that Mr. Lee was informed of the required elements of CERB and CRB claims, and he had the opportunity to make submissions responding to the initial refusals: Xin v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 595 at para 64.
[14] Mr. Lee and his son-in-law (who provided translation assistance) spoke to the second reviewer on the telephone twice, during which calls the reviewer requested documents showing gross income. He had about three months between the first and second review decision letters in which to provide additional documentation.
[15] Mr. Lee’s judicial review submissions express disagreement with the conclusions the reviewer drew from the documents provided, rather than argue that he did not have the opportunity to provide the documents. Nor did Mr. Lee indicate the need for additional time during the review to furnish other documentation or information; indeed, according to the reviewer’s notes, Mr. Lee stated that he “sent in everything they had.”
III. Conclusion
[16] Noting that the onus was on Mr. Lee to provide sufficient evidence to the CRA to establish he met the statutory requirements, I am unable to conclude that the second review decisions were unreasonable or that the review processes were unfair in his case.
[17] I understand that this result will be disappointing to Mr. Lee. The Court, however, cannot interfere with administrative decisions that are not shown to be unreasonable or unfair, on a balance of probabilities.
[18] The Respondent did not request any costs and, therefore, no costs will be awarded in the circumstances.
JUDGMENT in T-1988-23
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
The Applicant’s application for judicial review is dismissed.
No costs are awarded.
"Janet M. Fuhrer"
Judge
Annex “A”
: Relevant Provisions
Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act, SC 2020, c 5, s 8.
Loi sur la prestation canadienne d’urgence, LC 2020, ch 5, art 8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canada Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020, c 12, s 2.
Loi sur les prestations canadiennes de relance économique, LC 2020, ch 12, art 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
|
T-1988-23 |
STYLE OF CAUSE:
|
JAE CHUN LEE v CANADA REVENUE AGENCY
|
PLACE OF HEARING:
|
Vancouver, British Columbia |
DATE OF HEARING:
|
june 26, 2024 |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS:
|
FUHRER J. |
DATED:
|
july 2, 2024 |
APPEARANCES:
Jae Chun Lee |
For The Applicant (ON THEIR OWN BEHALF) |
Steven Stechly |
For The Respondent |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia |
For The Respondent |