Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Applicant was declared ineligible for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) due to insufficient proof of having earned at least $5,000 in employment income in 2019 or in the 12 months preceding his application.

• Pay stubs submitted by the applicant totaling $5,365 in gross income did not identify the employer, and the income was received in cash without bank deposits, making corroboration impossible.

• A self-reported "other income" of $5,700 on the 2019 tax return was found to be non-determinative, as tax returns are based on self-declaration and the discrepancy between the two amounts was unexplained.

• Allegations of procedural unfairness and lack of transparency against the CRA agent were dismissed, as the agent simply provided an opportunity to submit documents without committing to a favorable outcome.

• New evidence introduced at the judicial review stage — including notices of assessment and a bank statement — was deemed inadmissible, as new evidence generally cannot be presented during judicial review.

• Whether the applicant voluntarily ceased employment or stopped working due to COVID-19 was not addressed, as the income threshold issue alone rendered him ineligible.

Background and employment claims

Matthew Velasquez-Garboza sought judicial review of a decision by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that found him ineligible for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). He claimed to have worked as a croupier at a casino located in the Mohawk community of Kahnawà:ke during 2019. According to his account, he was paid entirely in cash and did not deposit any of these earnings into a bank account. He further asserted that his employer did not issue T4 slips. In support of his claim, he produced pay stubs covering the period from April 1, 2019 to June 9, 2019, showing a gross income of $5,365. However, these pay stubs did not identify the employer.

The CRA's determination of ineligibility

A CRA agent reviewed the evidence and concluded that Mr. Velasquez-Garboza was not eligible for CERB. The agent noted that despite the pay stubs, it was not possible to validate his income because he did not deposit his earnings into a bank account and there was no other supporting documentary evidence. The agent also concluded that he had voluntarily left his employment.

The $5,000 income threshold and evidentiary shortcomings

A central eligibility requirement for CERB was that the applicant must have earned at least $5,000 in employment income in 2019 or in the 12 months preceding the benefit application. While Mr. Velasquez-Garboza reported an "other income" of $5,700 on his 2019 tax return, the Court noted that the Federal Court has repeatedly held that a tax return, being based on self-declaration, is not determinative of income. Furthermore, the evidence before the agent did not establish the source of the "other income" and did not explain the discrepancy between the $5,365 shown on the pay stubs and the $5,700 reported on the tax return.

Procedural fairness arguments

Mr. Velasquez-Garboza argued that the CRA agent acted with a "lack of transparency" by requesting his pay stubs only to ultimately deem them insufficient. The Court characterized this as a procedural fairness allegation but found no merit in it. The agent had simply afforded the applicant an opportunity to submit as many relevant documents as possible, without any commitment that those documents would be considered sufficient. The Court referenced the Federal Court of Appeal's holdings that procedural fairness requires a person contesting CERB ineligibility to understand the facts held against them and to have the opportunity to present documentary evidence — requirements that were fully met in this case.

Inadmissibility of new evidence at judicial review

At the judicial review stage, Mr. Velasquez-Garboza submitted additional evidence, including notices of assessment and a bank statement from February 2020. The Court confirmed that these documents had not been presented to the agent. It is well established that, subject to narrow exceptions not applicable here, new evidence may not be introduced at the judicial review stage. The agent's decision could not be found unreasonable for failing to consider evidence that was never provided to her.

The Court's ruling and outcome

The Federal Court, presided by Justice Sébastien Grammond, dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court found that the second-level review agent's decision was reasonable, as the evidence was insufficient to establish that Mr. Velasquez-Garboza had earned at least $5,000 in employment income within the required timeframe. Because the income threshold issue alone was decisive, the Court declined to rule on whether the applicant had voluntarily ceased working. The successful party was the Attorney General of Canada (the respondent), and Mr. Velasquez-Garboza was ordered to pay costs in the amount of $250.