Federal Court Grants Judicial Review on CERB and CRB Denial

Date: 20260429 Docket: T-2763-24 Citation: 2026 FC 565 Ottawa, Ontario, April 29, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS I. Overview [ 1 ] [NAME] [the Applicant or [NAME]] seeks judicial review of two decisions dated November 3, 2023 [decisions], by which the Canada Revenue Agency [[NAME]] denied her applications for benefits under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit [CERB] and the Canada Recovery Benefit [CRB]. [ 2 ] [NAME] found that the Applicant was not eligible for the CERB and the CRB because she did not stop working or have her hours reduced for reasons related to COVID-19. [ 3 ] When assessing cases of this nature, the role of this Court on judicial review is not to determine whether or not [NAME] was eligible for the benefits, but rather to determine whether [NAME]’s decisions are reasonable in light of the evidence and arguments made before it. [ 4 ] For the reasons that follow, the application for judicial review is granted.

II. Background Facts [ 5 ] [NAME] applied for CERB benefits from March 15, 2020, to September 26, 2020, comprising a total of seven periods, as well as CRB benefits from September 27, 2020, to October 9, 2021, comprising a total of 27 periods. On March 17, 2023, [NAME]’s file was selected for an eligibility review by [NAME]. [ 6 ] For the first review, the Applicant produced (a) her 2019 Notice of Assessment and (b) her T4E Statement of employment. On September 21, 2023, [NAME] concluded that she did not qualify for both benefits because the evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate that she earned at least $5,000 from employment or self-employment for 2019, for 2020 or for 2021 or in the 12-month period preceding the day on which the application was made (Certified Tribunal Record) [CTR] at p 4). [ 7 ] On November 2, 2023, the Applicant requested a second review. To demonstrate her eligibility, the Applicant submitted various documents including her 2019 income tax returns establishing that she received employment insurance in the form of maternity leave benefits for the sum of $ 9,625 (she was on maternity leave from January 2019 to January 2020), her 2020 T4A and T4E slip, her 2021 T4A slip as well as her 2019, 2020 and 2021 T1 return income (CTR at pp 5-6). [ 8 ] On August 30, 2024, [NAME] contacted [NAME] to inquire about her reasons for applying for the CERB and CRB. During that call, [NAME] responded that she worked for a [NAME] from 2013 until December 2018, when she went on maternity leave for a year, ending in January 2020 (CTR at p 7). The [NAME] then asked the Applicant why she did not return to her employment after the maternity benefits ended in January 2020. The Applicant responded that she did not return to work because the shopping centre where she worked was closed (CTR at p 7). When the [NAME] asked the Applicant why she did not return to work in the period between the end of her maternity leave and the closure of shopping centres in March 2020, she was unable to provide a response (CTR at p 7). [ 9 ] At the end of the call, [NAME] was given 14 days to submit (CTR at p 7): • A record of Employment from her previous employer (one was already on file (CTR at p 68)); • Itemized statement of the maternity benefits received from the beginning to the last period; • Matching bank statement showing all the credits of the maternity benefits received from the first payment received to the last payment received; and • A copy of any email text or written or any other document issued by her employer regarding her job why she was not employed back after her maternity leave ended. [ 10 ] On September 19, 2024, [NAME] ruled that the Applicant had not provided the documents requested on August 30, 2024, and therefore could not establish that she stopped working or had her hours reduced for reasons related to COVID-19 (CTR at p 8).

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 11 ] The only issue is whether [NAME]’s decisions that the Applicant was ineligible for the CERB and CRB benefits are reasonable. [ 12 ] The appropriate standard of review for a [NAME]’s decision is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, [2019] 4 SCR 653 [ [NAME] ] at paras 16–17; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 817 at paras 18–19). [ADDRESS]’s role is to examine the administrative decision maker’s reasoning and the outcome to which it led to determine whether the decision is “based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis” and justified in light of the legal and factual constraints ( [NAME] at para 85). The burden is on the party challenging the decision to show that it is unreasonable ( [NAME] at para 100; see also [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 139 at para 45 [ [NAME] ] ; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General ), 2022 FC 131 at para 15; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 762 at para 29 [ [NAME] ]). Reasonableness review is not a “rubber-stamping” exercise, it is a robust form of review ( [NAME] at para 13; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2020] 2 FCR 3 at para 63). The party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable ( [NAME] at para 100). Any alleged flaws must be “sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable” or cause the “reviewing court to lose confidence in the outcome reached” ( [NAME] at paras 100, 106; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 SCC 21 (CanLII) at para 49).

IV. Analysis [ 13 ] The Government of Canada introduced the CERB and the CRB as part of a series of measures to mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic ( Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act , SC 2020, c 5 [ CERBA ]; Canada Recovery Benefits Act , SC 2020, c 12 [ CRBA ]. Eligible Canadian residents had to apply in order to receive the benefits. [ 14 ] Under paragraph 6(1)(a) of the CERBA and paragraph 3(1)(f) of the CRBA , one of the conditions for qualification was the cessation of employment for reasons related to COVID-19. To receive the benefits, [NAME] bore the burden of proving to [NAME], on a balance of probabilities, that she met all the criteria for these benefit programs ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 939 at para 15; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FC 203 at para 15 [ [NAME] ] citing [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 1596 at para 22). The assessment of these criteria by [NAME] is non‑discretionary ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FC 803 at para 33; [NAME] at para 15 citing [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 305 at para 23). As previously stated in [NAME] at paragraph 16: [16] Canada’s tax system is a self-reporting system. It assumes that the taxpayer is able to provide all relevant documentation in support of their return ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 381 at para 36–37 [ [NAME] ]).

Accordingly, the Applicant was required to provide sufficient evidence to support her claim ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 131 at para 35; [NAME] at para 55), and it was open to [NAME] to request additional documentation or information from her to prove her eligibility ( [NAME] at para 34). [ 15 ] In order to assess the reasonableness of [NAME]’s decision, the Court may consider [NAME]’s notes relating to the Applicant. These notes may be relevant as they tend to indicate part of [NAME]’s reasons, similarly to the [NAME] notes utilized by immigration officers ( [NAME] at para 22; [NAME] at para 9; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1431 at para 36; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 251 at para 17; McClintock’s Ski School & [COMPANY] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2021 FC 471 at paras 26–27; [NAME] at paras 94–98). [ 16 ] In this case, the Certified Tribunal Record shows that [NAME] reviewed the documents and considered the explanation provided by [NAME] during a telephone call with a [NAME] that occurred on August 30, 2024. During that call, [NAME] explained that she was on maternity leave, that she received maternity benefits until the end of January 2020 and that she was planning to return to work at the same employment where she had been working since 2013. When the [NAME] asked the Applicant why she did not go back to work after the end of her maternity leave in January 2020, the Applicant was unable to provide any further explanation, stating only that shopping centres were closed (which was not the case until March 2020). The [NAME] then requested additional evidence to prove that the Applicant could not go back to work because of COVID-19, including specifically “A copy of any email text or written or any other document issued by her employer regarding her job [sic] why she was not employed back after her maternity leave ended” (CTR at p 7). [ 17 ] However, the Applicant did not submit any additional documentation following that call (CTR at p 8). [NAME] therefore concluded that the Applicant failed to discharge her burden to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that she stopped working or had her hours reduced for reasons related to COVID-19. [ 18 ] Unfortunately, [NAME] analysis in this case is deficient. While noting that the documents submitted by the Applicant were examined, there is no analysis of the weight attributed to those documents. [NAME] reasons simply refer to the documentation filed, the notes taken during the telephone call that occurred on August 30, 2024, and then provides a conclusory statement which states that [NAME] “was not able to validate and confirm the information to further support the claim” for [NAME]’s eligibility for the CERB and CRB (CTR at p 8). [ 19 ] [NAME] reasons appear to demonstrate that a lot of weight was attributed to the fact that [NAME] had not returned to work as soon as possible after the end of her maternity benefits at the end of January 2020. However, the reasons do not explain why this fact is relevant. Nothing precludes a mother from staying at home to nurture their child for a longer period of time, even if the maternity benefits have ended. For example, and as conceded by the Respondent during their oral arguments, even if the return to work date had been scheduled for May 1, 2020 (instead of March), and that on May 1, 2020, the [NAME] was closed because of COVID-19, [NAME] would have qualified for the CERB for that period, because she would have been unable to resume work for reasons related to COVID-19. [ 20 ] In other words, the fact that [NAME] did not immediately go back to work in February is irrelevant. However, the [NAME] appears to have impugned [NAME]’s credibility regarding her return to work scheduled for March 2020, on the fact that she failed to go back to work right after the end of her maternity benefits at the end of January 2020. [ 21 ] Furthermore, in their Memorandum of Fact and Law (at paragraph 39) and in their oral arguments, the Respondent focussed on the fact that one of the reasons why [NAME] did not return to work was because of her difficulty to find adequate [NAME] for her child. The Respondent relies on a timeline provided by [NAME] in which she notes that in 2020, her “return to work date was being discussed when the [NAME] would be confirmed but COVID started and everything was put on hold” (CTR at p 101). The Respondent then relies on this Court’s decision in [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 936, to support their position that the Applicant did not work because she was unable to find a [NAME] and that this reason alone is not sufficient to qualify the Applicant for CERB and CRB. [ 22 ] With respect, nothing in [NAME] reasons demonstrate that the issue of [NAME] played any role in the outcome. Other than a blanket sentence stating that the [NAME] considered all the documentation which included “a copy of a screenshot stating [the Applicant’s] timelines of the events and their eligibility of Covid 19 benefits” , there is no analysis or discussion on the weight attributed to the timeline. However, just like the Court, the Respondent cannot “fashion its own reasons in order to buttress the administrative decision” ( [NAME] at para 96). Moreover, if great weight was attributed to the fact that the Applicant was seeking childcare, the reasons fail to indicate why more weight should be attributed to this factor, as opposed to the other evidence also stated in the timeline indicating that a “return to work was being discussed” but could not be finalized because of COVID-19. [ 23 ] In addition, the decision does not explain what weight, for example, was attributed to the Applicant’s record of employment establishing that she had been employed with her current employer since 2013 (CTR at p 68). Since there is no evidence that the Applicant resigned from her position, [NAME] remained employed even though she was on maternity leave. As such, a return to work must have been contemplated after the end of [NAME]’s maternity leave, which supports [NAME]’s argument that she was scheduled to return to work in March but could not do so because of COVID-19. No consideration is made of that fact in [NAME] reasons. An explanation as to why the record of employment carried no weight, for instance, in support of [NAME]’s argument that she remained employed and therefore would go back to work in the near future, but was unable to do so as a result of COVID-19, would have been useful in assessing the reasonableness of [NAME]’s decision. [ 24 ] As a result, there are sufficient shortcomings in [NAME]’s decision for the Court to lose confidence in the outcome. [NAME]’s reasons are not sufficiently transparent, intelligible and justified, in relation to the legal and factual constraints including the evidence submitted by the Applicant as a whole, to support the outcome ( [NAME] at para 85).

V. Conclusion [ 25 ] The application for judicial review is granted. [NAME]’s decision is quashed and remitted for reconsideration by a different officer; and the Applicant is entitled to provide the documents requested by [NAME] on August 30, 2024, to the extent that additional documentation exists. [ 26 ] The parties have agreed to bear their own costs.

JUDGMENT in T-2763-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is granted. [NAME]’s decision is quashed and remitted for reconsideration by a different officer. The whole without costs. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-2763-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: MONTREAL (QUÉBEC) DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 22, 2026

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: [NAME] J. DATED: APRIL 29, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The APPLICANT [NAME] For The RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitors Montréal (Québec) For The APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Montréal (Québec) For The RESPONDENT