|
Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) (2). Li v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Li v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a CERB-CRB JR, here brought against CRA decisions that the applicant "was not eligible for either the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) or the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) because he did not earn at least $5,000 (before taxes) of net self-employment income for 2019, 2020 or the 12 months before the date of his first claim for each benefit.":[6] The Federal Court concluded that the CRA’s decisions were reasonable for two principal reasons: (1) the CRA second review officer reasonably refused to rely on documentation prepared by Mr. Li to explain his self-employment income in the relevant years (including an amended T776 Statement of Real Estate Rentals); and (2) Mr. Li failed to establish that the decisions violated the attribution rules of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (ITA) or that the attribution rules established under the ITA impact the distinct CERB and CRB legislation and requirements.
[7] Mr. Li reasserts on appeal that the CRA unreasonably failed to accept his "“behind the scenes”" documentation and to respect the ITA attribution rules.
[8] We are not persuaded that Mr. Li has established any unreasonableness in the CRA’s decisions. In the course of the second reviews, the CRA officer communicated with Mr. Li, documented their interactions with him and considered Mr. Li’s documentation prepared for purposes of the CRA’s review, but concluded that it did not satisfy the income eligibility requirement for the CERB and CRB in the absence of additional documents demonstrating how much Mr. Li actually made. Despite Mr. Li’s able submissions, we find no reviewable error in the officer’s conclusion. We also note that the CRA officer is presumed to have considered all of Mr. Li’s documentation and submissions and we see no evidence in the record that they failed to do so. In addition, we are not persuaded by Mr. Li’s continued insistence on the application of the ITA income attribution rules to his case.
[9] Finally, the record does not support Mr. Li’s claim that the CRA process was procedurally unfair. Mr. Li was fully informed of the case he had to meet to establish his eligibility for the CERB and CRB and he was given repeated opportunity to provide documentation to support his claim to self-employment income in the relevant period(s). The notes of the CRA officer do not indicate any unfairness in the process followed. To the contrary, those notes establish the second CRA officer’s thorough consideration of Mr. Li’s documentation and arguments.
|
