Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Nida Qadri was found ineligible for the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) for seven two-week periods between February 28 and June 5, 2021, due to her absence from Canada.

• Her travel to Maryland from March 12 to May 24, 2021, was prompted by her father's passing from COVID-19 complications, a compassionate circumstance she disclosed transparently to the CRA.

• Eligibility under paragraph 3(1)(c) of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act requires physical presence in Canada, a criterion the Court confirmed is non-discretionary and leaves CRA officers no room for exceptions.

• Ms. Qadri argued she received prior assurance from the CRA and CBSA that her travel would not affect eligibility, but no record of such a call existed, and the doctrine of legitimate expectations cannot override an express statutory provision.

• New evidence submitted at the judicial review stage — a letter from one of her "main clients" confirming her availability to work — was ruled inadmissible because only evidence before the original decision maker is admissible on review.

• The Court dismissed the application, finding the decision reasonable and procedurally fair, though it expressed empathy and invited Ms. Qadri to explore a remission application under the Financial Administration Act.

Background and the Canada Recovery Benefit program

The Canada Recovery Benefit was part of a package of federal measures introduced in response to COVID-19, providing direct financial support to eligible employed and self-employed Canadian residents whose income was directly affected by the pandemic. The program was administered by the Canada Revenue Agency. Among its eligibility requirements, section 3 of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020, c 12, s 2, mandated that any claimant be "present in Canada" during each two-week period for which the benefit was claimed. Courts have consistently held that these eligibility criteria are statutory and non-discretionary, meaning CRA officers have no choice but to apply them.

The applicant's circumstances and travel to the United States

Nida Qadri, a marketing agent based in Canada, applied for the CRB after losing her clients during the pandemic. Her father passed away on February 12, 2021, in a hospital in the United States due to COVID-19 complications, as confirmed by a death certificate issued by the State of Maryland. Ms. Qadri travelled from Canada to Maryland on March 12, 2021, to support her mother, attend her father's last rites, and assist with estate affairs. She returned to Canada on May 24, 2021. Throughout her time abroad and upon her return — including during a quarantine period — she maintained that she remained available for work and was actively seeking opportunities, though she could not secure any work due to the pandemic.

The CRA review process

On October 31, 2024, the CRA sent Ms. Qadri a letter indicating that its information showed she may have been outside Canada "for all or part of the time for March 12, 2021 to May 25, 2021," which might make her ineligible for the CRB. She responded on November 26, 2024, submitting a letter explaining the reason for her travel, her father's death certificate, travel itineraries confirming her departure and return dates, and various COVID-19 vaccination reports and lab records linked to the travel. On February 6, 2025, she spoke with a CRA agent by phone and explained her circumstances. On February 11, 2025, after a first review, the CRA found her ineligible for the CRB for the impugned period. Ms. Qadri requested a second review on February 23, 2025, reiterating her compassionate circumstances and asking for reconsideration under what she described as "emergency exception provisions under CRB." Following further communication — including an attempted phone call by the CRA on August 18, 2025, and a return call from Ms. Qadri on August 26, 2025 — the CRA issued its final decision on September 5, 2025, confirming her ineligibility on the basis that she was not physically present in Canada during the relevant two-week periods.

Ms. Qadri's arguments before the Federal Court

Appearing as a self-represented litigant, Ms. Qadri advanced several arguments in her judicial review application. She contended that a rigid interpretation of the physical presence requirement was inconsistent with the remedial intent of the CRB program, which "was to provide income support to individuals 'available for work' whose earnings were affected by COVID-19 — not to punish those who briefly left Canada for compelling reasons." She argued the CRA should have exercised discretion and considered that she maintained her principal residence, business operation, and availability for work in Canada. She further submitted that the Decision "failed to provide adequate reasons, did not consider relevant evidence, and resulted in undue financial hardship contrary to the objectives of the CRB Program." She also claimed that she had reached out to the CRA and CBSA prior to travel and was advised that her travel was considered essential and that exceptions could be made on a case-by-case basis, highlighting her "good faith reliance" on this position. Relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), she maintained that fairness required considering her individual circumstances rather than applying the rules uniformly.

The respondent's position

The Attorney General of Canada responded that "the CRB legislation does not contain fairness or relief provisions, and courts have found in COVID-19 benefit matters that the decision-makers have no ability to make a decision based on fairness." The AGC submitted that the Officer "had no choice but to assess the Applicant's entitlement to the benefit based on the eligibility criteria set out in the legislation" and that the eligibility criteria left the Officer with no discretion. The AGC further argued that Ms. Qadri failed to identify any fatal flaw in the Decision, which was responsive to her arguments and evidence, and noted that a comparable argument based on the remedial nature of the legislative scheme had been unsuccessfully raised in Maltais v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 817, where the applicant claimed the decision maker had applied the eligibility criteria "too strictly."

The Court's analysis on reasonableness and procedural fairness

The Federal Court, applying the reasonableness standard of review as established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, found the CRA's decision reasonable. The Court acknowledged Ms. Qadri's sympathetic circumstances but concluded that the expression "present in Canada" used in paragraph 3(1)(c) of the CRB Act "suffers no ambiguity" and that the eligibility criteria were non-discretionary. No precedent was identified — by either the Applicant or the Court — that would support the notion that the CRA could grant exceptions to the presence requirement, regardless of how compelling the reasons for absence might be. On the question of legitimate expectations arising from alleged prior assurances by CRA or CBSA staff, the Court noted there was no trace of any such call in the Court's record, and that legitimate expectations must be based on "clear, unambiguous and unqualified representations." In any event, legitimate expectations relate to procedure and "cannot lead to substantive rights outside the procedural domain," and no legitimate expectation can arise that is contrary to the law. The Court further noted that any opinion formulated by a CBSA worker would have even less weight given that the CBSA was never involved in administering the CRB. The Court also found the Decision sufficiently motivated: although the decision letters were boilerplate, the Officer's internal notes — which form part of the reasons — undeniably demonstrated that the Officer did consider the Applicant's individual circumstances, including the explanations she provided on the phone and the documentation she sent to the CRA. The Officer "did not lack compassion; they simply did not have any discretion to waive the legal requirement that claimants have to be present in Canada." The process was deemed fair because the Applicant knew the case to meet and had "a full and fair chance to respond" as demonstrated by the phone calls she had with the CRA and the fact that she was allowed to make representations and submit new evidence for each review.

Ruling and outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, without costs. Each party was to bear its own costs, with the Court recognizing that Ms. Qadri was self-represented and had made "very professional representations before the Court." No specific monetary amount in dispute was stated in the decision. In an obiter statement, the Court described the outcome as "highly regrettable" given the circumstances under which Ms. Qadri had to leave the country, as well as the good faith and due diligence she exercised. The Court invited Ms. Qadri to enquire with the CRA and the Minister about the possibility of a remission under paragraph 23(2) of the Financial Administration Act, RSC 1985, c F-11 — a provision under which it appears a remittance can be granted on the basis that the taxpayer received erroneous advice. The Court also invited the parties to discuss how best to facilitate the repayment of the sums owed, noting that the CRA offers "various solutions tailored to your personal situation."