Federal Court Grants Judicial Review Due to Procedural Unfairness

Date: 20260528 Docket: T-4861-25 Citation: 2026 FC 696 Vancouver, British Columbia, May 28, 2026 PRESENT: Mr. Justice Sébastien Grammond BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT (Delivered from the Bench in Vancouver, British Columbia, on May 28, 2026)

I. Background [ 1 ] [NAME] is seeking judicial review of a decision made by the Canada Revenue Agency [[NAME]], finding him ineligible for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit [CERB] and the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit [CRCB]. [ 2 ] The [NAME] initially sent a letter asking [NAME] to prove his eligibility for both benefits, but he did not reply. An officer then issued a decision finding [NAME] ineligible. [ 3 ] By way of letter, [NAME] then sought a second review of the matter. He attached several documents to address the concerns mentioned in the [NAME]’s initial letter. [ 4 ] The officer tasked with the second review of [NAME]’s file felt she needed additional information. She left a phone message asking [NAME] to call her back before a specific date, after which a decision would be made upon the record she had. [NAME] says he never received this message. As she did not get an answer, the officer issued her decision. She found [NAME] ineligible for the CERB because he received more than $1,000 in employment or self-employment income during each of the benefit periods. With respect to the CRCB, she found that [NAME]’s working hours were not reduced.

II. Analysis [ 5 ] In my view, the process leading to this decision breached procedural fairness. [ 6 ] The degree of procedural fairness required in respect of COVID-19 benefits eligibility decisions is relatively low: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1571 at paragraph 17. An officer’s failure to speak directly to the applicant does not necessarily result in a breach of procedural fairness: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 1876 at paragraphs 22–23. An applicant who does not return the officer’s call is not deprived of an opportunity to provide meaningful submissions. This reasoning, however, does not extend to the failure to know the case to meet. [ 7 ] In the present circumstances, I find that [NAME] did not know the case to meet, which resulted in a breach of procedural fairness, as in [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FC 1562 at paragraphs 30–38. The initial letter the [NAME] sent to [NAME] stated that “You were not eligible to receive CERB if during your application period you earned over $1,000.” This letter disclosed the [NAME]’s concern or, in other words, the case to meet. The letter finding [NAME] ineligible after the initial review did not provide more details. Thus, when he requested a second review, [NAME] reasonably believed that he had to show what his income was during the application period , that is, from March to June 2020. For that reason, he provided his bank statements for that period only. [ 8 ] Nevertheless, based on her notes, it is clear that the officer formed the view that [NAME]’s self-employment income for the year 2020 may have been earned in part during the CERB application period. Thus, the officer expected [NAME] to bring evidence of his income not only during the application period, but also during the rest of the year 2020, to disprove the theory that some of his self-employment income was received while he was also receiving CERB benefits. The case to meet had changed, but [NAME] was never made aware of this. This is procedurally unfair. [NAME] had the burden of proof, he did not need to disprove any conceivable theory that the officer might harbour. [ 9 ] Where procedural fairness is breached, the decision must be set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration, unless the outcome was inevitable: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at paragraph 142, [2019] 4 SCR 653. I cannot say what the outcome would have been if the officer had spoken to [NAME].

III. Disposition [ 10 ] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be granted, the decision will be set aside and the matter will be remitted to a different officer for reconsideration. No costs will be awarded.

JUDGMENT in T-4861-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is granted. The decision made by the Canada Revenue Agency with respect to the applicant on November 17, 2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted to a different officer for reconsideration. No costs are awarded. "Sébastien Grammond" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: T-4861-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA DATE OF HEARING: May 28, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: GRAMMOND J. DATED: MAY 28, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] (self-represented) For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia For The Respondent