Federal Court of Appeal Upholds CRA Decision on CERB and CRB Eligibility
📌 In brief
The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Canada Revenue Agency's decision that denied a claimant's eligibility for CERB and CRB benefits because the claimant did not earn enough self-employment income.
⚖️ Legal holding
The CRA's determination of a claimant's eligibility for CERB and CRB benefits is subject to reasonableness review.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that the Minister must promptly review a taxpayer's income return for a year. They must calculate the tax, any interest or penalties, and figure out if the taxpayer is owed a refund or if certain amounts are considered paid towards their tax.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CRA's decision regarding the claimant's eligibility for CERB and CRB benefits.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal challenging the Canada Revenue Agency's decision denying a claimant's eligibility for CERB and CRB benefits due to insufficient self-employment income.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Date: 20260324 Dockets: A-103-25 (Lead File) A-104-25 Citation: 2026 FCA 62 CORAM: [NAME]. [NAME]. [NAME]. Docket: A-103-25 BETWEEN: [NAME] Appellant and [NAME] OF CANADA Respondent Docket: A-104-25 [NAME] Appellant and [NAME] OF CANADA Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 24, 2026. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on March 24, 2026.
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: [NAME]. Date: 20260324 Dockets: A-103-25 (Lead File) A-104-25 Citation: 2026 FCA 62 CORAM: [NAME]. [NAME]. [NAME]. Docket: A-103-25 [NAME] Appellant and [NAME] OF CANADA Respondent Docket: A-104-25 [NAME] Appellant and [NAME] OF CANADA Respondent
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on March 24, 2026). [NAME]. [ 1 ] [NAME] appeals from a judgment of the Federal Court dated February 21, 2025 (2025 FC 346, per Turley J.) in which the Federal Court dismissed applications filed by [NAME] requesting judicial review of two decisions of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), each dated July 25, 2024. In the decisions, the CRA concluded that [NAME] was not eligible for either the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) or the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) because he did not earn at least $5,000 (before taxes) of net self-employment income for 2019, 2020 or the 12 months before the date of his first claim for each benefit . [ 2 ] [NAME] received 7 CERB payments between March 15, 2020, and September 26, 2020, and 27 CRB payments between September 27, 2020, and October 9, 2021. During those periods, [NAME] co-owned rental properties with his wife and received a portion of the rental income. [ 3 ] On appeal of a Federal Court decision on judicial review, this Court is required to determine whether the Federal Court selected the correct standard of review and, if so, properly applied that standard: Northern Regional Health Authority v. [NAME] , 2021 SCC 42 at para. 10; [NAME] v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2013 SCC 36 at paras. 45-47. In this second regard, we step into the shoes of the Federal Court and consider de novo the administrative decision(s) at issue, here the CRA’s July 25, 2024 decisions. [ 4 ] In this case, the Federal Court correctly identified reasonableness as the applicable standard of review for the CRA’s decisions and stated that alleged breaches of procedural fairness are reviewable on a basis akin to correctness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 at paras. 10, 23; Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Canada ([NAME]) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras. 44-56. [NAME]’s submission that we must apply the correctness standard in assessing the substance of the CRA decisions under review is without merit. [ 5 ] We also see no merit in [NAME]’s argument that there were oral decisions taken by the CRA prior to the decisions communicated to him in letter form. The decisions under review are the written decisions, each dated July 25, 2024, addressed to [NAME] and signed by the same CRA officer. [NAME]’s two Notices of Appeal properly refer solely to the two written decisions. The oral conversations to which [NAME] makes reference in his memorandum of fact and law were and are not decisions. They were communications in which the CRA officer provided updates to [NAME] as to the status of the second reviews. The notes recorded by the CRA officer form part of the record before the Court and the reasons for the CRA decisions and we see no contradiction between the notes and the written CRA decisions. [ 6 ] The Federal Court concluded that the CRA’s decisions were reasonable for two principal reasons: (1) the CRA second review officer reasonably refused to rely on documentation prepared by [NAME] to explain his self-employment income in the relevant years (including an amended T776 Statement of Real Estate Rentals); and (2) [NAME] failed to establish that the decisions violated the attribution rules of the Income Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5 th Supp.) ( ITA ) or that the attribution rules established under the ITA impact the distinct CERB and CRB legislation and requirements. [ 7 ] [NAME] reasserts on appeal that the CRA unreasonably failed to accept his “behind the scenes” documentation and to respect the ITA attribution rules. [ 8 ] We are not persuaded that [NAME] has established any unreasonableness in the CRA’s decisions. In the course of the second reviews, the CRA officer communicated with [NAME], documented their interactions with him and considered [NAME]’s documentation prepared for purposes of the CRA’s review, but concluded that it did not satisfy the income eligibility requirement for the CERB and CRB in the absence of additional documents demonstrating how much [NAME] actually made. [NAME]’s able submissions, we find no reviewable error in the officer’s conclusion. We also note that the CRA officer is presumed to have considered all of [NAME]’s documentation and submissions and we see no evidence in the record that they failed to do so. In addition, we are not persuaded by [NAME]’s continued insistence on the application of the ITA income attribution rules to his case. [ 9 ] Finally, the record does not support [NAME]’s claim that the CRA process was procedurally unfair. [NAME] was fully informed of the case he had to meet to establish his eligibility for the CERB and CRB and he was given repeated opportunity to provide documentation to support his claim to self-employment income in the relevant period(s). The notes of the CRA officer do not indicate any unfairness in the process followed. To the contrary, those notes establish the second CRA officer’s thorough consideration of [NAME]’s documentation and arguments. [ 10 ] For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the appeals without costs. "[NAME]" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKETS: A-103-25 (LEAD FILE) a-104-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v. [NAME] OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: March 24, 2026
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: [NAME]. [NAME]. [NAME]. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: [NAME]. APPEARANCES : [NAME] ON HIS [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] of Canada For The Respondent
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The Canada Revenue Agency's decisions were considered reasonable because the review officer refused to rely on documentation prepared by the claimant to explain his self-employment income.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant's submission that the correctness standard should apply to the substance of the Canada Revenue Agency decisions was rejected.
- The claimant's documentation did not satisfy the income eligibility requirement for the benefits without additional proof of actual earnings.
- The claimant's insistence on applying the Income Tax Act income attribution rules to his case was not persuasive.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Canada Revenue Agency's decision denying the claimant's eligibility for CERB and CRB benefits.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant met the eligibility criteria for CERB and CRB benefits based on his self-employment income.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the CRA's decision was reasonable because the claimant did not provide sufficient documentation to prove his eligibility for the benefits.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Income Tax Act, specifically section 152, was applied in determining the claimant's eligibility for the benefits.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the claimant's failure to provide adequate documentation proving his self-employment income.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have comprehensive documentation to prove their eligibility for CERB and CRB benefits.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered included the claimant's documentation such as the T776 Statement of Real Estate Rentals and the CRA's notes from their interactions with the claimant.