Federal Court Dismisses CERB and CRB Eligibility Challenge

Date: 20260602 Docket: T-55-25 Citation: 2026 FC 718 Toronto, Ontario, June 2, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME], seeks judicial review of a decision made by the Canada Revenue Agency ([NAME]) to deny her eligibility for COVID-19 pandemic-related financial benefits programs, specifically the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) and the Canada Emergency Recovery Benefit (CERB). She argues that the Respondent unreasonably failed to consider the evidence she provided. [ 2 ] For the reasons below, the decision is responsive to the evidence. [NAME] has not demonstrated how the [NAME] either misapprehended the evidence or failed to take it into account, nor has she established that a breach of procedural fairness occurred. The application for judicial review is accordingly dismissed.

II. Background [ 3 ] In her CRB and CERB applications [NAME] provided evidence that she was employed by her spouse, providing administrative support for his aircraft maintenance contractor work. She asserted that the onset of COVID-19 lockdowns caused his business volume to drastically decrease. [ 4 ] [NAME] therefore applied for and received the CRB for a period from September 27, 2020, to October 9, 2021, and the CERB for the period from March 15, 2020, to September 26, 2020. [ 5 ] [NAME] was informed on December 3, 2020, that the [NAME] could not confirm she met the eligibility requirements for the CERB. The [NAME] encouraged her to review her income for eligibility, and to consider repaying her CERB amounts before December 31 of 2020 so that she was not improperly taxed for this amount if she was indeed not eligible. [ 6 ] [NAME] applied for review of her eligibility assessment by the [NAME], and on January 11, 2024, the [NAME] found that she was ineligible for the CERB because she did not earn at least $5,000 either in 2019 or in the year before her application, and that she did not stop working or had reduced hours due to COVID-19. The [NAME] made a parallel decision for the same reasons on January 11, 2024, regarding her eligibility for the CRB. [ 7 ] [NAME] applied for a second review of these decisions. On December 10, 2024, the [NAME] affirmed that she was ineligible for both the CRB and the CERB, but only because she did not stop working or have reduced hours due to COVID-19. This second review is the matter currently under judicial review. [ 8 ] The basis for the determinations of ineligibility was that, based on the documents submitted, the only evidence of when [NAME] was last paid was for December of 2019, prior to the impact of the pandemic, and there was no evidence to establish [NAME] was receiving payment for work after this time. Because of this, [NAME] failed to establish she met the necessary eligibility criteria, as she needed to show she was working just prior to the onset of COVID-19. [ 9 ] Throughout the review process, the [NAME] called [NAME] for more information numerous times. The [NAME] explained to [NAME] that eligibility was difficult to determine in a case like hers, in which someone is working for their spouse without clear payment for the work performed. [NAME] was advised that the [NAME] needed to see documentation and personal bank statements that show she was paid from her employment, or some paperwork proving that she made an income from working with her spouse. [NAME] responded that she and her spouse had a joint bank account and this documentation would be difficult. [ 10 ] In the [NAME] application, documentation establishing proof of employment consisted of a letter signed by [NAME] and her husband dated July 5, 2019, stating she was paid a total of $5070 in 2019 until December of that year for her work as his assistant. She also provided a job calendar with a payment summary ending in December of 2019.

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 11 ] A preliminary issue is whether the originally named Respondent, the Minister of National Revenue, is the appropriate Respondent in this matter. The Respondent asserts that the appropriate Respondent is the Attorney General of Canada because the Applicant is challenging a decision made by the Canada Revenue Agency on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Social Development. The Applicant does not contest this submission, and therefore the Attorney General of Canada will be named as the Respondent effective immediately. [ 12 ] [NAME] argues that the decision is unreasonable for failing to take account of her evidence. The issue of the decision’s reasonableness is considered pursuant to the reasonableness standard set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 [ Vavilov ], affirmed in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21. A reasonable decision bears the hallmarks of justification, transparency and intelligibility ( Vavilov at para 99). [ 13 ] In her Notice of Application, [NAME] identified a breach of procedural unfairness arising from the Respondent’s failure to comprehensively assess her submissions. This is more properly characterized as an issue of reasonableness ( Vavilov , at paras 127-128). [NAME] did not identify any other procedural fairness concern in her written submissions or oral argument.

IV. Analysis [ 14 ] Subsection 3(f) of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act , SC 2020, c. 12, s. 2 being part 2 of the COVID-19 Response Measures Act , SC 2020, c 12, requires that during a given two-week period for which someone requests CRB relief, the person was either not employed or had at least a 50% reduction in employment income for reasons related to COVID-19. Subsection 6(1)(a) of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act , being part 2 of the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act , SC 2020, c 5, similarly requires that someone, for a given 4-week period for which they are requesting relief, has ceased work during that period for reasons related to COVID-19. [ 15 ] The determinative finding in the refusals of [NAME]’s CRB and CERB applications was that [NAME] failed to prove she was working after December of 2019. As such, the [NAME] could not find she ceased working for reasons related to COVID-19. [ 16 ] [NAME] asserts that her evidence, including her timeline of events and 139-page log of emails showing job applications, were not properly considered by the [NAME]. [ 17 ] On the matter of her job applications, the [NAME] directly noted [NAME]’s evidence of her job search. As such, it cannot be said this was not accounted for. Moreover, the issue of her job search is not determinative of, or even clearly related to, whether the Applicant was working prior to the onset of COVID-19 restrictions. [ 18 ] [NAME] argues that her evidence demonstrates she had ongoing employment from February 3 to March 15 in 2020. This is not demonstrated in the evidence. [NAME] provides a handwritten calendar account of events that took place over 2020 and 2021. However, the notes are indecipherable and do not provide a clear recounting of what work was done, by whom, or if she was paid. [ 19 ] In any case, the Officer reasonably found that [NAME] did not provide documented evidence that she was paid for work after 2019. As such, it was reasonable for the Officer to conclude that she did not work after this period. [NAME] contests that it is a mischaracterization to claim she was not working, it was her burden to establish this with documentation. The decision is reasonable in light of the record. [ 20 ] [NAME] also urges that the decision is unreasonable by virtue of its causal statement that she did not stop working for reasons “unrelated to COVID-19.” However, she has failed to demonstrate any unreasonableness in the finding that there was insufficient evidence to establish she had paid work after December of 2019. As such, this argument has no bearing on the decision. [ 21 ] [NAME] also asserts that it was an error for the Officer to treat the absence of reported income as determinative. The issue was not reported income being absent, but rather any proof of payment indicative that she indeed was earning a wage demonstrating she had employment prior to the onset of COVID-19.

V. Conclusion [ 22 ] The [NAME]’s decision was reasonable because it intelligibly and transparently accounted for the relevant submissions and evidence provided by [NAME]. Her evidence did not satisfy the Second Reviewer that she was paid for work after December of 2019, and this rendered her ineligible for the CRB and the CERB. Evidentiary assessments are treated deferentially by a court on judicial review, and there is no evidence that the [NAME] misapprehended or failed to account for any evidence ( Vavilov, at paras 125-126).

JUDGMENT in T-55-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed without costs. The Attorney General of Canada is named as the Respondent, effective immediately. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-55-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 1, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: JUNE 2, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] FOR THE APPLICANT (ON HER OWN BEHALF) [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent