Federal Court Dismisses CERB and CRCB Denial Appeal

Date: 20260703 Docket: T-4753-25 Citation: 2026 FC 894 Toronto, Ontario, July 3, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Battista BETWEEN: [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 to benefits she received under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (CRCB) programs. [ 2 ] [NAME] argues that the decision was unreasonable because it did not respond to her evidence and failed to provide a rational chain of analysis. She also states that she was denied procedural fairness because she was provided inadequate reasons and the [NAME] unfairly neglected to consider her evidence. [ 3 ] As explained below, the decision was reasonable and [NAME] was treated fairly. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

II. Background [ 4 ] [NAME] is a registered dental hygienist who applied for and received benefits under the CERB and the CRCB. She reported both employment and self-employment income in her application for the benefits. [ 5 ] On April 19, 2024, the [NAME] contacted [NAME] requesting documents to establish her eligibility for these benefits. The [NAME] requested documents to confirm her employment, her pay, her reduced work hours during the relevant periods and requested bank statements. [ 6 ] The [NAME] did not receive any documents or response from [NAME]. They accordingly advised her that she was ineligible for the benefits she received. [ 7 ] Following this determination of ineligibility, [NAME] requested a second review so that she could submit additional documents. She submitted a letter from the Ontario Dental Hygienists’ Association attesting to the impact of COVID-19 on the profession, including information that dental hygienists were not permitted to practice for months during the COVID-19 pandemic. [ 8 ] The [NAME] again asked [NAME] to provide pay stubs, records of employment, and invoices for her self-employment work, and she agreed to do so by October 13, 2025. A follow-up call was given on October 7, 2025, during which [NAME] explained that documents such as pay stubs and records of employment for 2021 and 2022 could not be provided, and the [NAME] provided suggestions regarding other acceptable documentation. [ 9 ] No additional documents were received before the [NAME]’s October 13, 2025, deadline. On October 17, 2025, the [NAME] advised [NAME] that she was found ineligible for the CERB because she was found to have earned more than $1,000 in income during the applicable payment period, and ineligible for the CRCB because her work schedule was found not to have been reduced by at least 50% and she was not found to have ceased working.

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 10 ] The Respondent raises a preliminary issue regarding the admissibility of evidence contained in the Application Record which was not before the decision-maker. No standard of review is required for the resolution of this issue, which is resolved by applying the principles regarding the admissibility of new evidence on judicial review ( Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v [NAME] ( Access Copyright ), 2012 FCA 22 [ Access Copyright ] at para 20). [ 11 ] The reasonableness of the decision will be evaluated 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 must bear the hallmarks of justification, transparency and intelligibility ( Vavilov, at para 99). [ 12 ] [NAME] also asserts that she was denied procedural fairness. Questions of procedural fairness do not involve a standard of review. They require the Court to ask whether the procedure followed by the decision-maker was fair and just having regard to all the circumstances ( [NAME] Company v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 [ [NAME] ] at para 54). The ultimate question is whether the party knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond ( [NAME], at para 56).

IV. Analysis A. The new information in the Court record will be disregarded [ 13 ] The Respondent has requested that the Court disregard Exhibits A through E and part of Exhibit F attached to [NAME]’s Affidavit in her Application Record because they were not before the decision-maker. [ 14 ] In fact, none of these materials appear in the Certified Tribunal Record, which is presumed to be complete ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1282 at para 17). [NAME] does not attest these materials were submitted before the Second Reviewer. [ 15 ] [ADDRESS] may only admit new evidence on judicial review in three circumstances, specifically; i) where the new evidence provides general background in circumstances where that information might assist in understanding the issues relevant to the judicial review but not on the merits of the underlying decision; ii). where the new evidence brings the attention of the Court to procedural defects not found in the evidentiary record; iii) where the new evidence highlights the complete absence of evidence before the decision-maker on a particular finding ( Access Copyright, at para 20; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 48 at para 8). [ 16 ] None of these circumstances apply to the new information provided by [NAME]. She is not using this evidence to demonstrate a procedural defect, nor is she using it to highlight an absence of evidence, nor can the information be considered “general background” information that will assist the Court in evaluating the decision under review. As such, Exhibits A through E and the employment records within Exhibit F are inadmissible and excluded from consideration. B. The decision is reasonable [ 17 ] The CERB is governed under the Income Support Payment (Excluded Nominal Income) Regulations , SOR/2020-90, wherein section 1 states that applicants must earn only $1,000 or less in order to be eligible for the CERB under section 6(1)(b)(i) of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act , SC 2020, c 5, s 8 ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 197 at para 11). [ 18 ] Eligibility under the CRCB is governed under the Canada Recovery Benefits Act , SC 2020, c 12, s 2, wherein section 17(f) requires that in order to be eligible an applicant must have been either unable to work or had their work hours reduced by at least 50% during the relevant time period. [ 19 ] The onus is on applicants to both programs to establish their eligibility ( He v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 1503 at para 25). [ 20 ] The record for the decision, including the log notes and the absence of relevant evidence on file, render the decision reasonable. As such, the brief nature of the decision is not fatal given the record ( Vavilov , at paras 94, 103; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2026 FC 132 at para 28). The [NAME] reasonably determined that [NAME] failed to establish her eligibility for the benefits she received. [NAME] has not pointed to any shortcoming in the reasonableness of the decision aside from mere assertions that it does not appear her evidence were taken into consideration. C. No breach of procedural fairness occurred [ 21 ] [NAME] argues that the decision is procedurally unfair because the [NAME] did not provide her with a deadline to submit her documents, and because the reasons she was given are formulaic. [ 22 ] The record reveals that [NAME] was provided with sufficient notice to provide documents establishing her eligibility. Specifically: - She was first advised of the documentary requirements for her applications in a letter dated April 19, 2024. That letter advised her of the risk of a determination that she was not eligible if she did not submit the required documents within 45 days. - On September 22, 2025, she was personally advised by telephone of the need for documents establishing her eligibility and given a deadline of October 13, 2025, to upload her documents. [ 23 ] [NAME] states that she was not aware of the deadline, it is clearly indicated in the file notes and there is no merit to her suggestion that no deadline was provided. [ 24 ] Regarding the responsiveness of the reasons provided, as indicated above, the decision letter together with internal notes form the reasons for the decision, and they clearly indicate the basis for the decision. It is difficult to imagine what more can be said to an applicant who fails to furnish sufficient information to establish their eligibility for a program, aside from a notation that they are not eligible.

V. Conclusion [ 25 ] There is no merit to [NAME]’s arguments that the determinations of ineligibility for the benefits she received were unreasonable or unfair.

For these reasons, the application is dismissed without costs.

JUDGMENT in T-4753-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed without costs. "Michael Battista" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-4753-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: JULY 2, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: BATTISTA J. DATED: JULY 3, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant (Self-Represented) [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent