Federal Court Grants CRB Eligibility Claim, Denies CERB

Date: 20260623 Docket: T-3238-25 Citation: 2026 FC 856 Toronto, Ontario, June 23, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Grant BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. OVERVIEW [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks judicial review of two decisions that were communicated to him jointly by a Canada Revenue Agency [[NAME]] Second Level Reviewer. In those decisions, the reviewer found that [NAME] was not eligible for either: 1) the Canada Emergency Response Benefit [CERB]; or 2) the Canada Recovery Benefit [CRB]. [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, this application for judicial review will be granted in part.

II.

BACKGROUND A. Facts [ 3 ] At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, [NAME] worked full-time and in-person at a warehouse. He quit this employment in July 2020 for two reasons. First, his spouse was accepted into a full-time study program, and, because there were no childcare services available due to the pandemic, [NAME] had to care for their two young children. The second reason that [NAME] left his work was his concern about catching COVID-19, because his job required working in-person with other people. Having left this job, [NAME] took on more flexible, part-time delivery work, including work through the [NAME] platform. [ 4 ] Given that his income was significantly reduced for reasons he attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, [NAME] applied for and received the CERB for the periods of August 30, 2020, to September 26, 2020. He also applied for and received the CRB for the periods of October 11, 2020, to July 17, 2021. [ 5 ] Some three years later, on July 2, 2024, the [NAME] contacted [NAME] to request confirmation of his eligibility for the CERB and the CRB. [ 6 ] On July 5, 2024, [NAME] provided the [NAME] with several supporting documents, including a letter stating, “I lost my job on July 17, 2020, because of the COVID-19 lockdown.” He also provided a letter from [NAME] indicating that he earned $4,902.30 between April 29, 2020, and July 4, 2024, with a detailed breakdown by payment period, and bank statements from the relevant periods. [ 7 ] On September 25, 2024, a First Level Reviewer called [NAME] to request additional supporting documents. In that conversation, according to the Reviewer’s notes to file, [NAME] stated: 1) that he was laid off from his job because he was deemed non-essential; 2) he had been willing and able to work; and 3) applying for Employment Insurance had not been an option. The officer requested that [NAME] send in his Record of Employment [ROE] for 2019 and 2020, along with invoices and expense reports to show business income. [NAME] explained that he did not have this documentation. [ 8 ] On October 1, 2024, [NAME] called the [NAME] to confirm the documents he needed to provide to show his business income from his work with [NAME]. The Reviewer clarified that he had to provide invoices, expense reports, and bank statements. [ 9 ] On October 16, 2024, the First Level Reviewer determined that [NAME] had not been eligible for the CERB because he had earned more than $1,000 during each benefit period, and he had not stopped working for reasons related to COVID-19. The First Level Reviewer also found that [NAME] was not eligible for the CRB because he did not have a 50% reduction in his weekly income from the previous year. The Reviewer’s notes to file indicate that they came to this conclusion because [NAME] had not provided the requested invoices, expense reports, pay stubs, or ROEs. [ 10 ] As he was entitled to do, [NAME] requested a second review of his CERB and CRB eligibility. [ 11 ] On July 29, 2025, a Second Level Reviewer called [NAME]. The Reviewer’s notes to file from that phone call indicate that [NAME], “attested to quitting and voluntarily reducing working hours due to fear of catching COVID-19.” More specifically, [NAME] explained that he quit his full-time warehouse job due to his fear of catching COVID-19 and started doing part-time delivery work to have the flexibility to provide childcare. [ 12 ] The Second Level Reviewer relied on this statement to determine that [NAME] had been ineligible for the CERB and the CRB because he had quit his employment “voluntarily” and “not for reasons related to COVID-19,” per the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act , SC 2020, c 5, s 8, ss 6(1)(a) and 6(2) [ CERB Act ], and the Canada Recovery Benefits Act , SC 2020, c 12, s 2, ss 3(1)(f), 3(1)(k)(i), 3(1)(l)(i) [ CRB Act ]. As a result, the Reviewer did not assess any of the documentation on file to determine [NAME]’s income during the relevant benefit periods. [ 13 ] The Second Level Review decision was issued to [NAME] on July 31, 2025. In that decision letter, the Reviewer stated that [NAME] had not been eligible for the CERB because he quit his job voluntarily and did not stop working or have his hours reduced for reasons related to COVID-19, and that he had not been eligible for the CRB because he had quit his job voluntarily. [ 14 ] Of note, the letter also stated that [NAME] was ineligible for the CERB for earning more than $1,000 during the applicable benefit period, and ineligible for the CRB for not having a 50% reduction in his weekly income compared to the previous year.

III. ISSUES and STANDARD OF REVIEW [ 15 ] [NAME] disagrees with the Second Level Review decision and argues that it should be overturned. He also argues that the process that led to this decision was unfair. It is well-established that the standard of review applicable to the merits of the [NAME]’s decisions regarding CERB and CRB benefits is reasonableness: He v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 1503 at para 20; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 1088 at para 12. [ 16 ] On issues relating to procedural fairness, the reviewing court must conduct its own analysis of the process followed by the decision-maker to determine whether the process was fair: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1362 at para 8. This approach to review is functionally the same as applying the correctness standard: Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras 49-56. The level of procedural fairness owed to CERB and CRB applicants is at the low end of the spectrum: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1571 at para 17.

IV. ANALYSIS A. The Respondent’s Concessions [ 17 ] As noted above, the [NAME]’s decision was based on the following findings: [NAME] earned more than $1,000 of employment or self-employment income during the applicable payment period. He quit his job voluntarily. He did not stop working or have his hours reduced for reasons related to COVID-19. CRB He quit his job voluntarily. He did not have a 50% reduction in his average weekly income compared to the previous year due to COVID-19. [ 18 ] In his written argument, counsel for the Respondent conceded that the first of the above CERB findings, and the second of the above CRB findings were in error, as the Second Level Reviewer had not completed any income calculations. [ 19 ] At the hearing into this matter, I turned the Respondent’s attention to paragraph 3(1)(k) of the CRB Act , which is one of the several eligibility criteria for receipt of CRB benefits. It essentially provides that a person is eligible for the stipulated benefits if they have not, on or after September 27, 2020, quit their employment or voluntarily ceased to work, unless it was reasonable to do so. Given that the Applicant quit his warehouse job before September 27, 2020, I asked the Respondent how the Second Level Reviewer could rely on [NAME]’s resignation as a ground for denying his CRB benefits. To his credit, counsel for the Respondent conceded that this aspect of the Second Level Reviewer’s decision was also unreasonable. [ 20 ] As it is now conceded that both grounds on which the Second Level Reviewer denied [NAME]’s CRB benefits were unreasonable, counsel for the Respondent has amended his argument and submits that the Court should grant this application in respect of the CRB findings. [ 21 ] I agree with the parties that this application for judicial review should be granted in respect of the CRB findings because these findings do not appear to be justified in light of the relevant legal constraints, most notably paragraph 3(1)(k) of the CRB Act . B. The CERB Decision was Reasonable and Fair [ 22 ] Despite the above concessions, the Respondent maintains that the reviewer’s conclusion that the Applicant voluntarily quit his job and that, as such, he was not eligible for the CERB, was reasonable. The Respondent also maintains that this decision was arrived at in a fair manner. I agree. [ 23 ] Paragraph 6(1)(a) of the CERB Act is as follows: 6 (1) A worker is eligible for an income support payment if 6 (1) Est admissible à l’allocation de soutien du revenu le travailleur qui remplit les conditions suivantes : (a) the worker, whether employed or self-employed, ceases working for reasons related to COVID-19 for at least 14 consecutive days within the four-week period in respect of which they apply for the payment; and a) il cesse d’exercer son emploi — ou d’exécuter un travail pour son compte — pour des raisons liées à la COVID-19 pendant au moins quatorze jours consécutifs compris dans la période de quatre semaines pour laquelle il demande l’allocation; […] […] [ 24 ] Thereafter, subsection 6(2) of the CERB Act narrows the scope of the word “ceases” for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a): (2) An employed worker does not cease work for the purpose of paragraph (1)(a) if they quit their employment voluntarily. (2) Pour l’application de l’alinéa (1)a), un travailleur ne cesse pas d’exercer son emploi s’il le quitte volontairement. [ 25 ] While the Applicant ceased his work at the warehouse within the relevant CERB time period, it is clear that this work stopped because [NAME] voluntarily quit his job. He was not terminated, and he was not temporarily laid off from this job. [ 26 ] On this point, I also note that in his interactions with [NAME] does not appear to have been forthcoming on this point. For example, in a call with a [NAME] employee on September 25, 2024, [NAME] is recorded as indicating that he was laid off from his warehouse job because he was deemed non-essential. As noted above, at another time, [NAME] stated “I lost my job on July 17, 2020.” It was only during the Second Level Review, when the Applicant provided his ROE from the warehouse job, that it became clear that he had quit his job. [ 27 ] I understand that English is not [NAME]’s first language (he communicated through an interpreter at the hearing in this matter). Nevertheless, it appears that he was able to convey information to [NAME] officials, and this information did not accurately reflect why he stopped working at the warehouse. [ 28 ] In any event, it became clear before the Second Review was completed that the Applicant had quit his job. On this point, [NAME] says that his resignation from the warehouse job was not “voluntary” in the sense that he would not have left the job if he had not been afraid of catching COVID-19, and if there had been childcare options available during the pandemic. True as this may be, it was reasonable in the circumstances for the Second Level Reviewer to conclude that [NAME] had quit his job voluntarily: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 1731 at paras 23-25; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 421 at paras 31-33. [ 29 ] I also find that the process that led to this determination was fair. [NAME] argues that the process was unfair, primarily because over the course of the First Review, no findings were made related to his resignation from the warehouse job. As such, [NAME] argues that he was taken by surprise by the Second Review decision and was not given adequate notice that this decision would turn on the question of the voluntariness of his departure from work. [ 30 ] While I have some sympathy for this argument, the record indicates that [NAME] had several conversations with [NAME] officials, and that the process was explained to him, including the general eligibility and income criteria. Given the level of procedural protections owed in this context, I find that [NAME] had adequate notice of the case he had to meet and was provided with a fair opportunity to meet it. For the record, [NAME]’s apparent misrepresentations to [NAME] officials as to how he left his warehouse job do not assist in his argument that he has been treated unfairly in the review process.

V.

CONCLUSION [ 31 ] For the above reasons, the application for judicial review in respect of the CERB decision is dismissed. The application for judicial review in respect of the CRB decision is granted, and this matter alone will be returned to the [NAME] for redetermination by a new decision-maker. Owing to the Applicant’s mixed success on this application for judicial review, no costs will be awarded.

JUDGMENT in T-3238-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is granted in part. The application in respect of the Respondent’s decision under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act is dismissed. The application in respect of the Respondent’s decision under the Canada Recovery Benefit Act is granted and the matter is remitted for redetermination by a different reviewer. No costs are awarded. "Angus G. Grant" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-3238-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: June 16, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: GRANT J. DATED: JUNE 23, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant ON HIS [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent