Federal Court Grants Judicial Review of CRA Benefit Decisions Due to Procedural Unfairness

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260611 Docket: T-3936-25 Citation: 2026 FC 786 Ottawa, Ontario, June 11, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Manson BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE [NAME] [NAME] OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Introduction [ 1 ] This is an application for judicial review of Canada Revenue Agency ( “[NAME]” ) [NAME] review decisions (the “Decisions” ) regarding the Applicant’s Canada Emergency Response Benefit ( “CERB” ) and Canada Recovery Benefit ( “CRB” ) eligibility. [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, the application is granted.

II. Background [ 3 ] The Applicant, [APPELLANT], applied for and received CERB for periods between March 15, 2020 and September 26, 2020. She also applied for and received CRB for periods between September 27, 2020 and October 9, 2021. [ 4 ] [NAME] later reviewed the Applicant’s eligibility for those benefits. The record indicates that [NAME] first attempted to validate the Applicant’s eligibility before issuing first review decisions. The Applicant asserts that she did not receive any [NAME] telephone call or mailed correspondence before those first decisions and therefore had no meaningful opportunity to respond at that stage. [ 5 ] [NAME]’s first review resulted in decisions dated December 7, 2023, finding the Applicant ineligible for the benefits. Those first decisions are not the subject of this application and are addressed only as background to the [NAME] review process. On July 13, 2024, the Applicant requested a [NAME] review and she submitted additional documents and representations on: a) July 13, 2024; b) July 23, 2025; and c) September 3, 2025. [ 6 ] [NAME] assigned a different officer (the “[NAME]” ) to conduct the [NAME] review. [ 7 ] The Applicant asserts that she waited more than one year after requesting the [NAME] review before receiving meaningful contact from [NAME]. While the record indicates that the [NAME] called the Applicant on August 25, 2025, the [NAME]’s notes set out that the Applicant did not proceed with passing confidential security measures during that call, and the Applicant asserts that a September 3, 2025 telephone call was the first and only substantive opportunity she had to discuss the review with the [NAME]. The Applicant asserts that during that call, she explained to the [NAME] that she had been on disability leave and needed time to obtain employer compensation statements from her employer, [NAME]. The Applicant asserts the [NAME] told her that she had to show that she received more than $5,000 in income from [NAME] in the 12 months before her application. The [NAME] set a deadline of September 17, 2025 for the Applicant to provide further materials. [ 8 ] After the September 3, 2025 call, the Applicant submitted bank statements, which she says she understood to address the $5,000 income issue. The Applicant also asserts that she called the [NAME] multiple times before the September 17, 2025 deadline and left voicemail messages explaining the uploaded materials, asking whether further documents were required, and explaining that she was awaiting compensation statements from [NAME]. She relies on telephone records to support that assertion. [ 9 ] The [NAME] proceeded to make the Decisions on September 18, 2025 and the letters communicating the Decision are dated September 24, 2025. [ 10 ] The Applicant then submitted further documents, including employer compensation statements, T1 returns for 2019 and 2020, two calculation summaries, and other materials, some of which the Applicant uploaded to [NAME] on or after September 24, 2025.

III. The Decisions [ 11 ] The [NAME] determined that the Applicant was not eligible for: a) CERB, because the Applicant “did not earn at least $5,000 (before taxes) of employment and/or self-employment income in 2019 or in the 12 months before the date of your application” ; and b) CRB, because the Applicant “did not earn at least $5,000 (before taxes) of employment and/or net self-employment income in 2019, 2020, or in the 12 months before the date of your application” . [ 12 ] The CERB letter also states that a remission of overpayment applies to individuals who received CERB and were later deemed ineligible because they did not have $5,000 in net self-employment income but would have been eligible if the requirement had been based on gross self-employment income. That letter advises the Applicant that she will not have to repay the CERB payments she received. [ 13 ] The Notice of Application expressly identifies the September 24, 2025 decision concerning the $5,000 income threshold. Although it refers primarily to the CERB decision, the CRB decision was issued on the same day, by the same officer, on a substantially overlapping record, and related to COVID-19 benefits eligibility.

IV. Issues [ 14 ] The issues are as follows: Should the style of cause be amended to name the [NAME] [NAME] of Canada as Respondent? May the Court review both September 24, 2025 decisions in this application? What evidence may the Court consider on judicial review? Was [NAME]’s process procedurally fair? Are the Decisions reasonable? V. Standard of Review [ 15 ] The standard of review with respect to the Applicant’s procedural rights is correctness or a standard with the same import ( [COMPANY] v Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras 34-35 and 54-55, citing Mission Institution v [NAME] , 2014 SCC 24 at para 79). The standard of review with respect to the [NAME]’s substantive findings is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ] at para 25).

VI. Analysis A. The Style of Cause [ 16 ] The proper respondent is the [NAME] [NAME] of Canada, and the style of cause is hereby amended accordingly. B. Reviewing Both Decisions [ 17 ] The Respondent accepts that both Decisions may be considered in this application. I agree. [ADDRESS] considers both the [NAME]-review decisions in this application. C. The Record Before the Court [ 18 ] On judicial review, the Court generally confines itself to the record before the decision maker, subject to limited exceptions such as background context, proof of procedural defects, or to show a complete absence of evidence on a particular finding ( Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v [NAME] (Access Copyright) , 2012 FCA 22 at paras 19-20; [NAME] v Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2018 FCA 48 at para 8). [ 19 ] The Respondent submits that additional employer compensation statements, tax returns, and calculation summaries that were not before the [NAME] cannot be used by this Court to assess the reasonableness of the Decisions. However, those documents may help explain the nature of the procedural fairness complaint. The Applicant argues that those are the kinds of documents she was attempting to obtain from her employer and submit to [NAME] when she called and left explanatory voicemail messages for the [NAME]. To that limited extent, they are relevant to the question of whether the process gave the Applicant a meaningful opportunity to respond. [ 20 ] The Applicant’s telephone records and uploaded screenshots are also relevant to procedural fairness. They do not go to her eligibility for benefits; they may be considered for the limited purpose of assessing whether the Applicant attempted to communicate with the [NAME] before the deadline set by the [NAME] and whether [NAME] process was fair. D. The Statutory Framework [ 21 ] Sections 2 and 6 of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act , SC 2020, c 5, s 8 [ CERB Act ], set out the CERB eligibility criteria, including that an applicant must have had at least $5,000 of prescribed income in 2019 or in the 12 months before the application. [ 22 ] Section 3 of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act , SC 2020, c 12, s 2 [ CRB Act ], set out the CRB eligibility criteria, including that an applicant must have earned at least $5,000 of prescribed income in the specified reference periods, with any self-employment income calculated on a net basis. [ 23 ] Both statutes permitted the Minister to require information from an applicant to determine eligibility. Section 10 of the CERB Act authorizes the Minister to require information to verify an applicant’s CERB benefit eligibility, and subsection 5(3) of the CERB Act states that a CERB applicant is responsible for providing any information the Minister requires of them in respect of their CERB application. Section 6 of the CRB Act authorizes the Minister to require information to verify an applicant’s CRB eligibility. [ 24 ] The Applicant bears the burden of providing information sufficient to establish eligibility. [ 25 ] The CERB Act and the CRB Act do not prescribe internal [NAME] review procedures. The record shows that [NAME] adopted a two-step administrative process: an initial eligibility review followed by a [NAME] review by another officer if requested within 30 days. [ 26 ] [NAME] policies, scripts, and internal guidance may assist in understanding the administrative context and the process [NAME] expected its officers to follow but are not binding. They may, however, be relevant to assessing whether an officer’s process was fair and whether the reasons are justified in their administrative context. E. Procedural Fairness [ 27 ] The Applicant submits that [NAME] breached procedural fairness by failing to return calls, failing to clarify documentary requirements, and refusing to extend time despite her attempts to explain that she needed time to request and receive further employer documents. The Applicant argues that the [NAME]’s handling of the file deprived her of a meaningful opportunity to respond. [ 28 ] The Applicant argues that [NAME] waited a long time before contacting her after she submitted her request for [NAME] reviews, then imposed a short deadline and closed the file without engaging with her repeated efforts to communicate. The Applicant argues that she believed the bank statements she submitted on September 3, 2025 were responsive to what the [NAME] had requested, and that she was trying to obtain more complete employer compensation records before the deadline set by the [NAME]. [ 29 ] The Respondent submits that the process was fair. The Respondent argues that [NAME] gave the Applicant notice of the eligibility concern, explained the $5,000 requirement, provided an opportunity to submit documents, and reviewed the documents received before the September 17, 2025 deadline. The Respondent also argues that there is no evidence in [NAME] notes that the Applicant requested an extension. [ 30 ] The duty of fairness requires that the Applicant was entitled to know the case she had to meet and to have a meaningful opportunity to provide information to substantiate her claim that she qualified for benefits before the [NAME] review decisions were made. [ 31 ] The record shows that the [NAME]’s review turned entirely on one issue: whether the Applicant had earned at least $5,000 in qualifying income. The Applicant’s communications and later materials were directed to that same issue. The September 3, 2025 call, during which the Applicant and [NAME] spoke, is relevant on this point. The Applicant says she explained her circumstances to the [NAME] and the need to obtain compensation statements from her employer and the related challenges to do so. The Respondent relies on [NAME] notes indicating that the [NAME] explained the requirement to the Applicant and set a deadline. While those two propositions can both be true, the question is whether the procedure, viewed as a whole, was fair. [ 32 ] [NAME]’s own internal guidance is not binding, it provides relevant context. The guidance relied on by the Applicant states that where a [NAME] expresses legitimate concerns that a deadline is too short, the agent should try to obtain a commitment for a reasonable new deadline. That guidance reflects a practical procedure [NAME] chose for this kind of review. While not binding on the [NAME], and did not give the Applicant an automatic right to more time, it is relevant contextually because it shows that [NAME] recognized the practical importance of flexibility and fairness where a [NAME] needs time to obtain documents. [ 33 ] The Applicant produced phone records to support her claim that she attempted to call the [NAME] multiple times on and after September 3, 2025. She also asserts that, after submitting additional documents to [NAME] on September 3, 2025, she left multiple voicemail messages for the [NAME] in which she provided her identifying details, asked whether the additional documents were sufficient, and explained that she was waiting for compensation statements from her employer. Notwithstanding the Respondent’s counsel’s submission at the hearing that the [NAME] did not receive the Applicant’s phone calls, the record contains no evidence supporting that assertion. [ 34 ] The Respondent’s argument that [NAME]’s internal notes do not record the Applicant’s calls or an extension request is not, in these circumstances, a complete answer. The Applicant’s argument is that the [NAME] did not answer or return her calls and that she left voicemail messages. If the [NAME] did not answer the Applicant’s calls, one would not necessarily expect a detailed [NAME] note recording the content of those calls. The procedural fairness issue cannot be resolved simply by saying that the [NAME]’s notes do not record the communications the Applicant says were ignored. The [NAME]’s notes show that she gave the Applicant [PHONE] as her phone number, the Applicant had an active deadline, the Applicant says she needed more time to obtain employer compensation statements, and her evidence shows that she placed multiple calls to [PHONE] on and after September 3, 2025. The Respondent does not provide a satisfactory answer to that evidence. [ 35 ] Additionally, during the September 3, 2025 call where the Applicant spoke to the [NAME], the Applicant told the [NAME] that it would be difficult to obtain additional documents from her employer since she had been on disability leave for a long time. However, the [NAME] still set a deadline that left 14 days for the Applicant to request and receive those documents from her employer and submit them to [NAME]—hardly a fair appreciation or acknowledgement of the Applicant’s circumstances by the [NAME]. [ 36 ] The issue here is the adequacy of the opportunity given to the Applicant before the [NAME] made Decisions, with significant financial consequences to the Applicant. The unfairness arises from the combination of circumstances: a) a long period between the Applicant’s request for [NAME] review and substantive contact by [NAME]; b) after the first meaningful discussion between the Applicant and the [NAME], the [NAME] set a short deadline of 14 days for the Applicant to request and receive documents from her employer and submit them to [NAME]; c) the Applicant’s documented attempts to call the [NAME]; and d) the relevance of the missing material to the determinative issue. [ 37 ] The Decisions turned on the finding that the Applicant had not shown at least $5,000 in qualifying income. The documents the Applicant argues that she was trying to obtain from her employer were directed to that eligibility requirement. Had the [NAME] set a longer deadline or returned the Applicant’s calls, the record before the [NAME] may have been materially different. [ 38 ] The Respondent argues that the [NAME] carefully considered the documents the Applicant submitted on July 13, 2024, July 23, 2025, and September 3, 2025. That may be so. However, careful review of an incomplete record does not cure a failure to provide a fair opportunity for the Applicant to complete the record, particularly where the Applicant was actively making attempts to contact the [NAME] before the deadline. [ 39 ] While the Applicant also relies on section 7 of the [NAME] , the application is resolved on the administrative law grounds set out above. [ 40 ] I find that the Applicant was denied procedural fairness. F. Reasonableness of the Decisions [ 41 ] Having found a breach of procedural fairness, I need not address the reasonableness of the Decisions. [APPELLANT]. Remedy [ 42 ] While the Applicant asks the Court to find that she met the $5,000 income requirement, that is not the Court’s role. Here, the procedural defect is sufficient to set aside the Decisions and remit to a different officer. The reconsidering officer will give the Applicant a reasonable opportunity to submit documents and representations addressing the $5,000 qualifying income requirement.

VII. Conclusion [ 43 ] The style of cause is amended to name the [NAME] [NAME] of Canada as the Respondent. [ 44 ] The application for judicial review is granted. [NAME] [NAME] review decisions dated September 24, 2025, concerning the Applicant’s CERB and CRB eligibility, are set aside. [ 45 ] The matters are remitted to a different [NAME] officer for redetermination. [ 46 ] On redetermination, the Applicant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to submit documents and representations addressing the $5,000 qualifying income requirement. [ 47 ] No costs are awarded.

JUDGMENT in T-3936-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application is granted and the matter is referred to a different officer for reconsideration in accordance with the reasons of this decision. No costs are awarded. "Michael D. Manson" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-3936-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE [NAME] [NAME] OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: May 27, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [APPELLANT] J. DATED: June 11, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] For The Applicant (ON HER [APPELLANT]) [APPELLANT] [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] [NAME] of Canada Ottawa, Ontario For The Respondent