Federal Court Overturns CRA Decision on CRB Eligibility

Date: 20260703 Docket: T-2350-24 Citation: 2026 FC 904 Toronto, Ontario, July 3, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME] D’[NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by a Canada Revenue Agency [[NAME]] officer [the Officer] dated August 8, 2024, relating to the Applicant’s eligibility for the Canada Recovery Benefit [CRB]. The Officer concluded that the Applicant was ineligible for CRB because she did not earn at least $5,000 (before taxes) in employment and/or self-employment income in 2019, 2020, or in the 12 months before the date of her application. [ 2 ] As explained in further detail below, this application for judicial review is granted, as the Decision is unreasonable.

II. Background A. The factual context [ 3 ] The Applicant applied for and received CRB for 15 periods from September 27, 2020, to April 24, 2021. The [NAME] chose to verify the Applicant’s eligibility for CRB and sent the Applicant notices dated July 12, 2022, and August 11, 2022, requesting her to provide documentation supporting her eligibility. [ 4 ] The Applicant provided the [NAME] with written submissions and documentation on August 2, 2022, September 13, 2022, and September 22, 2022. On October 5, 2022, a [NAME] officer informed the Applicant that she was ineligible for CRB because she did not earn at least $5,000 (before taxes) in employment and/or self-employment income in 2019, 2020, or in the 12 months before the date of her first application. [ 5 ] The Applicant requested a second review of her eligibility for CRB on November 3, 2022, and provided further submissions and documentation. On October 24, 2023, the Applicant submitted a letter to follow up on the status of her request for second review, and offered to provide further information, if required. B. Decision under Review [ 6 ] By letter dated August 8, 2024, the Officer informed the Applicant of the Decision within the application for judicial review. The Officer found that the Applicant was ineligible for the CRB because she did not earn at least $5,000 (before taxes) in employment and/or self-employment income in 2019, 2020, or in the 12 months before the date of her application. [ 7 ] The Officer’s internal notes [Officer’s Notes] inform an understanding of the reasons for the Decision ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 1670 at para 14; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 139 at para 2 ). [ 8 ] An entry from the Officer’s Notes demonstrates the Officer’s reasoning for the Decision. The Officer acknowledged the documents received:

1) Bill of Invoice (Without address and no Tax on income)

2) T4A for the year of 2019.

3) Bill of Invoice & T4A for the year of 2019 (from 1 & 2)

4) Proof of Income (19 pages attached)

5) Second review requesting letter. [ 9 ] The Officer noted that the Applicant declared only $5,200 of income for the year 2019 and had no income history before or after 2019. Then, the Officer concluded that the Applicant is ineligible for all benefit payments based on the documentation provided. [ 10 ] The Officer’s Notes demonstrate that the Applicant would be contacted to discuss providing more documentation to confirm receipt of at least $5,000 in 2019 or the 12 months prior to her first CRB application. After no further documentation was received, the Officer closed the file.

III. Legislative Framework [ 11 ] The legislative framework was summarized by Justice Ngo in [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 497 at paragraphs 24 and 26:

24. The CRB was created under the Canada Recovery Benefits Act , SC 2020, c 12, s 2 [CRB Act]. Section 3 of the CRB Act sets out the eligibility requirements for the CRB. A person is eligible if, in the case of an application in respect of a two‑week period beginning in 2020, they had, for 2019 or in the 12‑month period preceding the day on which they make the application, a total income of at least $5,000 (paragraphs 3(1)(d) and (f) of the CRB Act). Furthermore, during the two‑week period covered by the benefit, for reasons related to COVID‑19, a self-employed person must have not been self‑employed or must have had a reduction of at least 50% in their work for the year or in the 12‑month period preceding the day on which they made the application. […]

26. The [Canada Emergency Response Benefit] and CRB were governmental measures of social and economic assistance, adopted to overcome the inherent limits of the employment insurance program in the unprecedented and difficult context created by the COVID‑19 pandemic ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1761 at para 38). [ 12 ] The eligibility criteria are non-discretionary such that [NAME] officials have no choice but to apply the eligibility criteria ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FCA 187 [ [NAME] ] at paras 4, 7).

IV. Preliminary Issues A. Interpreter [ 13 ] In a letter dated April 2, 2026, and filed on April 3, 2026, the Applicant provided a formal notice that she intended to bring a private, accredited Mandarin-to-English court interpreter to the hearing at her own expense [the Interpreter]. [ 14 ] In a further letter dated and filed on June 15, 2026, the Applicant provided further details regarding her use of an interpreter, namely, the full legal name of the interpreter, and a certificate establishing the Interpreter’s accreditation. [ 15 ] This matter was heard on July 2, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Toronto, Ontario. At the hearing, the Respondent consented to the Applicant’s use of the Interpreter. I also asked the Interpreter to take an oath or affirmation, contained in Form 93, as to the performance of the Interpreter’s duties, in accordance with Rule 93(3) of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR/98-106 [the Rules]. The oath or affirmation in Form 93 of the Rules is attached in Appendix A. I appreciate that Rule 93 applies to witnesses. As such, the oath or affirmation was modified to reflect this application for judicial review pursuant to Rule 55 of the Rules, namely by replacing “witness” with “applicant.” The Interpreter undertook the affirmation at the beginning of this hearing before any submissions were heard. B. Inadmissible Evidence [ 16 ] As argued by the Respondent, the general rule on judicial review is that the evidentiary record before the Court is restricted to the evidence that was before the administrative decision-maker, subject to limited exceptions ( Universities and Colleges of Canada v [NAME] ([NAME]) , 2012 FCA 22 [ [NAME] ] at paras 19-20). [ 17 ] I will disregard the evidence enumerated at paragraph 57 of the Respondent’s Memorandum of Fact and Law because it was not before the Officer and none of the exceptions apply. Regardless, nothing substantive turns on this issue. As explained in further detail below, my conclusion that the Decision is unreasonable is based on the Officer’s Notes, and the Applicant’s submissions to the [NAME], namely an invoice dated August 19, 2019, which was before the Officer [the Invoice].

V. Issues and Standard of Review [ 18 ] The parties’ submissions raise the following issues for the Court’s determination: Is the Decision reasonable? Has the Applicant established that she was deprived of procedural fairness? A. Standard of Review [ 19 ] The standard of reasonableness applies to reviewing the merits of the Decision ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ] at paras 16-17). [ 20 ] A standard of review akin to correctness applies to the issue of procedural fairness ( Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v [NAME] , 2026 FCA 115 [ [NAME] ] at paras 38, 43; [NAME] Company v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 [ [NAME] ] at paras 54–56; Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2020 FCA 196 at para 35). When applying the standard of correctness to procedural fairness issues, the Court asks whether the procedure followed was fair having regard to all the circumstances, ( [NAME] at para 54; [NAME] at paras 44-45). The ultimate question is whether the individual had a meaningful opportunity to know and meet the case and had a full and fair chance to respond ( [NAME] at para 56).

VI. Analysis A. Is the Decision reasonable? [ 21 ] The burden is on the Applicant to demonstrate that the decision is unreasonable through satisfying the reviewing court that the decision contains “sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency” ( [NAME] at para 100). Flaws or shortcomings must amount to more than “a minor misstep” , or “superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision” and instead, must be “central or significant” ( [NAME] at para 100). [ 22 ] I conclude that the Applicant has met her burden of demonstrating that the Decision is unreasonable. The Decision is unreasonable because the Officer’s reasons do not satisfy the standard of justification, intelligibility, and transparency required in the jurisprudence when rejecting the Invoice, which is – within the context of a cash business – a primary documentation demonstrating that the Applicant earned over the requisite income ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 114 [ [NAME] ] at paras 11-12; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 1670 [ [NAME] ] at para 15; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2026 FC 676 [ [NAME] ] at para 26; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FC 455 [ [NAME] ] at para 11). [ 23 ] [ADDRESS] has held that an Officer must provide justification for rejecting a form of proof contemplated by the [NAME] guidelines to establish eligibility for the COVID-19 benefits, which includes invoices ( [NAME] at para 12; [NAME] at para 11). [ADDRESS] has further acknowledged that the [NAME] guidelines contemplate situations where [NAME] take cash payments and indicate that the applicant must be able to provide invoices containing information like the date of the service, the name of the client, the cost of the service, and the payment received ( [NAME] at paras 16-20). [ 24 ] The jurisprudence establishes that it is not reasonable to reject invoices demonstrating cash income and require corroborative documentation in the absence of an adverse credibility finding or an explanation for the departure from the [NAME]’s guidelines ( [NAME] at paras 15, 20, 26, 29; [NAME] at para 26). This jurisprudence has been distinguished in circumstances where the Officer has identified specific gaps (e.g., proof of payment, nature and timing of income) or otherwise explained why the invoices were insufficient ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General ), 2025 FC 1876 at para 24; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1761 at para 37). [ 25 ] The Officer’s Notes establish that the Officer acknowledged the Invoice, noting that it was without an address and did not charge tax on the income. While the Officer specifically notes these concerns with the Invoice, a review of the Officer’s Notes does not provide the requisite intelligible, transparent and justified explanation for rejecting the Invoice. After reviewing the record before the Court, the Officer did not explain that the lack of an address and no tax included amounted to an adverse credibility determination or a specific gap. Rather, it focused its reasons on the need to provide corroborating documentation. As such, I cannot distinguish this matter from the jurisprudence identified ( [NAME] at para 26; [NAME] at para 15; [NAME] at para 12; [NAME] at para 11). [ 26 ] I note that in its oral submissions, the Respondent argued that corroboration was required pursuant to section 6 of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act , SC 2020, c 12, s 2, [ CRB Act ], which requires an Applicant to provide the Minister with any information that the Minister may require in respect of the application. In my view, the Respondent has not advanced arguments of the Applicant’s non-compliance with section 6 of the CRB Act , or has demonstrated that section 6 prevents the Officer from providing an explanation for rejecting a form of proof contemplated by the [NAME] guidelines to establish eligibility for the COVID-19 benefits. [ 27 ] To be clear, I am not deciding on the credibility of the Invoice. It is not the role of the reviewing court to reweigh or reassess the evidence ( [NAME] at para 125). It is open to a different [NAME] officer on a subsequent review to assess the details contained on the Invoice, and the circumstances surrounding the Invoice. In doing so, the Officer may make an adverse credibility determination or question the nature and timing of the income. It may well be that the ultimate redetermination will find the Applicant ineligible, but at least the Applicant will have been afforded the opportunity to address any gaps in the evidence, including determinations of credibility. As espoused in the jurisprudence canvased above, these conclusions must be justified, transparent and intelligible. [ 28 ] As I have concluded that the Decision is unreasonable, I will not address procedural fairness.

VII. Conclusion [ 29 ] Based on the reasons above, this application for judicial review is allowed because the Decision is unreasonable. My Judgment will set aside the Decision and refer this matter back to the [NAME] for redetermination by a different officer in accordance with the Court’s Reasons. [ 30 ] While the Applicant seeks costs, the Applicant is self-represented and has not identified any out-of-pocket costs incurred in her pursuit of this application. No costs will be awarded.

JUDGMENT in T-2350-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This application is allowed, the Decision is set aside, and this matter is referred back to the [NAME] for redetermination by a different officer in accordance with the Court’s Reasons. No costs are awarded. “[NAME]” Judge APPENDIX “ A ” Form 93, as contained in the Federal Courts Rules , SOR/98-106 FORM 93 Rule 93 Form of Oath or Affirmation — Interpreter You swear (or affirm) that you understand the (language of witness) language and the language in which the examination is to be conducted and that you will truly interpret the oath (or affirmation) to the witness, all questions put to the witness and the answers of the witness, to the best of your skill and understanding. (In an oath, conclude: So help you God.) FORMULE 93 Règle 93 Formule de serment ou d’affirmation solennelle — interprète Vous jurez ( ou affirmez solennellement ) que vous comprenez la langue ( langue du témoin ) et la langue dans laquelle doit se dérouler l’interrogatoire et que vous ferez au témoin la traduction fidèle de la formule du serment ( ou de l’affirmation solennelle ) de même que de chacune des questions qui lui seront posées et de ses réponses, au mieux de vos aptitudes et de votre entendement. ( Dans le cas d’un serment, terminer par la formule suivante : Que Dieu vous soit en aide .) FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-2350-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: jULY 2, 2026

REASONS and judgment: D’[NAME] J. DATED: JULY 3, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant (SELF-REPRESENTED) [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent