Federal Court rejects CERB eligibility challenge

Date: 20260611 Docket: T-3741-25 Citation: 2026 FC 784 Ottawa, Ontario, June 11, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Manson BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Introduction [ 1 ] This is an application for judicial review of a Canada Revenue Agency ( “[NAME]” ) [NAME]-review decision (the “Decision” ) regarding the Applicant’s eligibility for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit ( “CERB” ). [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, the application is dismissed.

II. Background [ 3 ] The Applicant, [NAME], applied for and received CERB payments for periods between March 15, 2020 and September 26, 2020. [ 4 ] The [NAME] administered CERB validation on behalf of the Minister. As part of that process, the [NAME] reviewed whether the Applicant met the statutory eligibility requirements for CERB benefits. [ 5 ] By letters dated March 6, 2023 and January 10, 2024, the [NAME] asked the Applicant to provide documents supporting his eligibility. Those letters identified examples of relevant documents, including pay stubs, invoices, bank records, and letters. [ 6 ] On February 16, 2024, the Applicant provided two undated letters to the [NAME]. On July 25, 2024, the Applicant provided further materials, including: a) an unsigned 2020 service agreement for $3000 referring to “[NAME]” as the buyer; b) an unsigned 2019 service agreement for $2900 referring to “[NAME]” as the buyer; and c) TD bank statements for October 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020. [ 7 ] By letter dated January 23, 2025, the [NAME] issued a first-review decision finding the Applicant ineligible for CERB. [ 8 ] The Applicant sent a letter, received by the [NAME] on February 18, 2025, in which he maintained that he met the income requirement. The [NAME] treated that request as the Applicant seeking a [NAME] review of his eligibility. [ 9 ] The [NAME] assigned a different officer (the “[NAME]” ) to conduct the [NAME] review. During that review, the [NAME] considered materials including: a) prior [NAME] system entries; b) the Applicant’s reported income and deductions for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 taxation years; and c) the Applicant’s written submissions, including the materials the Applicant submitted in February 2024, July 2024, and February 2025. [ 10 ] The [NAME] system information showed the Applicant’s reported income of $3,000 in 2019, $2,900 in 2020, and no employment or self-employment income in 2021. [ 11 ] The [NAME]’s notes state that they had questions about the Applicant’s eligibility, the nature of the Applicant’s work, the Applicant’s reasons for believing that he was eligible for CERB, and whether the Applicant had further substantiating documents. [ 12 ] The [NAME] spoke with the Applicant by telephone on September 4, 2025. The [NAME]’s notes about that call include that: a) the Applicant confirmed that his tax returns for 2019 and 2020 were accurate; b) the Applicant described his work as odd jobs, including driving, changing windows, and shovelling snow; c) the Applicant said his work involved helping family, neighbours, and friends; d) the Applicant affirmed that he was not licensed for his work; e) the Applicant said he did not advertise his services; f) the Applicant affirmed that he was never self-employed outside of 2019-2020; and g) the Applicant said that he had no further relevant documents to submit.

III. The Decision [ 13 ] The impugned decision is the [NAME]’s [NAME]-review letter dated September 8, 2025. While the Notice of Application refers to September 9, 2025, the Decision communicated in the September 8, 2025 letter is the operative decision. [ 14 ] The September 8, 2025 letter advised the Applicant that the [NAME] had completed the [NAME] review of his Canada Emergency, Recovery, and/or Worker Benefits applications. The Decision involved three determinations: a) it found the Applicant ineligible for CERB because he did not earn at least $5,000 before taxes of employment or self-employment income in 2019 or in the 12 months before the date of his application; b) it found the Applicant ineligible for the Canada Recovery Benefit ( “CRB” ) because he did not earn at least $5,000 before taxes of employment income or net self-employment income in 2019, 2020, or in the 12 months before the date of his application; and c) it found the Applicant ineligible for the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit ( “CRCB” ) because he did not earn at least $5,000 before taxes of employment income or net self-employment income in 2019, 2020, 2021, or in the 12 months before the date of his application. [ 15 ] The [NAME]’s notes, which form part of their reasons ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 1670 at para 14; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 139 at para 2 ), concluded that the Applicant had not established that he met the statutory income requirement to qualify for CERB for several reasons, including: a) the absence of a prior history of the work claimed; b) the absence of business-like features; c) the lack of a consistent verifiable income stream; d) the lack of specific dates on the submitted service agreements; e) inconsistencies between the service agreements and bank deposits; f) mismatch between the amounts set out in the 2019 and 2020 service agreements and the amounts the Applicant declared for those years; and g) the Applicant had confirmed that he did not have any additional relevant documents to submit to support eligibility. [ 16 ] The Notice of Application seeks an order setting aside only the denial of CERB eligibility. The Applicant’s memorandum also frames the dispute as a CERB judicial review. Although the September 8, 2025 letter also addressed CRB and CRCB, no separate relief is sought in the Notice of Application for those determinations. [ 17 ] I therefore treat the CERB determination as the decision properly before the Court.

IV. Issues [ 18 ] The issues are: Was the [NAME]’s CERB determination reasonable? Did the [NAME] breach the duty of procedural fairness? V. Standard of Review [ 19 ] 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). The standard of review with respect to the Applicant’s procedural rights is correctness or a standard with the same import ( [COMPANY] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras 34-35 and 54-55, citing [NAME] v [NAME] , 2014 SCC 24 at para 79).

VI. Analysis A. Statutory Framework [ 20 ] Sections 2 and 6 of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act , SC 2020, c 5, s 8 [ [NAME] ], 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. The prescribed categories include employment and self-employment income. [ 21 ] Section 5 of the [NAME] addressed applications, including subsection 5(3), which required an applicant to provide any information the Minister required in respect of the application. Section 10 of the [NAME] authorized the Minister to require a person to provide information or documents for the purpose of verifying compliance with the [NAME] . [ 22 ] The [NAME] does not prescribe internal [NAME] review procedures. The record shows that the [NAME] adopted a two-step administrative process: an initial eligibility review followed by a [NAME] review by another officer if requested within 30 days. B. Procedural Fairness [ 23 ] The Applicant argues that the [NAME] breached fairness by failing to notify him of missing proof and by failing to give him an opportunity to clarify the record before denying his eligibility. [ 24 ] The content of procedural fairness depends on the circumstances. Procedural fairness obligations in COVID-benefit validation decisions are generally at the low end of the spectrum ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FC 117 at para 32). The Applicant was entitled to notice of the case to meet and a meaningful opportunity to present information supporting eligibility. [ 25 ] Here, the Applicant knew the central issue. The [NAME]’s earlier correspondence asked for proof of income and identified examples of documents that could support eligibility. The first-review decision advised the Applicant that the [NAME] was not satisfied that he met the requirements. The Applicant then provided a further submission to the [NAME] and the [NAME] conducted a [NAME] review. [ 26 ] The [NAME] also spoke with the Applicant by phone before issuing the Decision. The [NAME]’s notes of the September 4, 2025 call show that the [NAME] raised questions about the Applicant’s work, eligibility, and substantiating documents. The Applicant stated that he had no further material to provide. The [NAME] directly asked the Applicant about the nature of his work and the availability of further documents before the [NAME] made the Decision. [ 27 ] The Applicant says that the [NAME] should have requested clarification. However, the statutory scheme placed an obligation on the Applicant to provide information required to establish eligibility. He was given multiple opportunities to do so. [ 28 ] The Applicant had an opportunity to provide written submissions and to speak with the [NAME] before the Decision was made. The [NAME] considered his materials and explanations.

I therefore find no breach of procedural fairness. C. Reasonableness of the Decision [ 29 ] The Applicant submits that the Decision was unreasonable because the denial letter did not explain why his evidence was rejected. While that submission is understandable as the Decision letter is brief, the Court does not assess the letter in isolation. The [NAME]’s contemporaneous notes show the reasoning path the [NAME] followed. [ 30 ] The Applicant submits that he earned more than $5,000 in the relevant period. He argues that the [NAME] ignored his documents, failed to ask for clarification, failed to explain why his documents were insufficient, and applied the eligibility rule rigidly. [ 31 ] The Respondent submits that the Decision was reasonable. The Respondent argues that the Applicant had the burden to establish his eligibility, that he was repeatedly told that proof of income was required, that the [NAME] considered the relevant materials, and that the Applicant did not establish the required income threshold. [ 32 ] The [NAME]’s notes identify the materials reviewed, including: a) the Applicant’s earlier submissions to the [NAME]; b) the Applicant’s submitted service agreements; c) the Applicant’s submitted bank statements; d) the [NAME]’s system records; and e) the Applicant’s explanation during his September 4, 2025 call with the [NAME]. [ 33 ] The [NAME]’s notes also explain the [NAME]’s concerns. The [NAME] was not satisfied that the Applicant had established a reliable link between the documents he provided and qualifying employment or self-employment income of at least $5,000 in the relevant period. [ 34 ] The [NAME] considered that the Applicant’s reported income on [COMPANY] was below the $5,000 requirement. The [NAME]’s notes state that, during the September 4, 2025 phone call with the [NAME], the Applicant confirmed that his tax filings and claimed expenses were accurate. The [NAME]’s notes identify a concern regarding discrepancies between the Applicant’s service agreements and declared self-employment income, specifically: a) the 2019 service agreement was for $2,900, while the Applicant declared $3,000 in self-employment income for 2019; and b) the 2020 service agreement was for $3,000, while the Applicant declared $2,900 in self-employment income for 2020. [ 35 ] The [NAME]’s notes also set out that: a) the Applicant’s bank statements did not, by themselves, prove that deposits were qualifying income; and b) the Applicant’s service agreements were unsigned or incomplete and did not reconcile with the bank statements. [ 36 ] Highlighted deposits in the Applicant’s bank statements show: a) $1,300 on October 4, 2019; b) $1,000 on October 15, 2019; c) $370 on November 8, 2019; d) $1,750 on February 21, 2020; and e) $1,300 on March 31, 2020. [ 37 ] While the $1,300 deposit on October 4, 2019 and the $1,000 deposit on October 15, 2019 appear to correspond to two of the services set out in the 2019 service agreement, the 2019 service agreement sets out two instances of “shovel the snow on driveway & cut bushes” at $370 per instance, while the deposit of November 8, 2019 totals $370. Indeed, the total purchase price of $2,900 set out in the 2019 service agreement appears to be inaccurately calculated based on the services description, which actually results in a total of $3,040. [ 38 ] Further, the $1,750 deposit on February 21, 2020 and the $1,300 deposit on March 31, 2020 do not correspond to the services set out in the 2020 service agreement, which are: a) “drive the car and transportation” at $1,500; and b) “general work for construction” at $1,500. [ 39 ] The [NAME] also considered the Applicant’s claim that he performed odd jobs. The Decision does not turn on disbelief that any odd jobs occurred; it turns on the absence of sufficient reliable evidence establishing that the Applicant earned at least $5,000 of qualifying income in the required period. [ 40 ] The [NAME] reasonably examined whether the Applicant’s deposits were income, whether the submitted service agreements were connected to work performed, whether the timing of the alleged payments fit the statutory period, and whether the claimed income reconciled with the Applicant’s tax filings. [ 41 ] The Applicant argues that the [NAME] ignored his documents. However, the [NAME]’s notes show that the documents were reviewed. That the [NAME] did not interpret those documents as the Applicant sought does not mean that they were ignored. [ 42 ] The Applicant submits that his written statements and submissions established that he earned more than $5,000. The [NAME] was not required to accept that assertion without adequate corroboration. The eligibility inquiry required proof of qualifying income in a specific period. A general assertion of income, particularly where inconsistent with filed tax information and incomplete supporting records, did not compel a finding of eligibility. [ 43 ] The Applicant’s argument asks the Court to prefer his interpretation of the bank records and agreements over the [NAME]’s interpretation. That is not the role of the Court on reasonableness review. [ADDRESS]’s task is to determine whether the Decision, including both its outcome and reasoning, is justified, transparent and intelligible in light of the governing statutory scheme, the evidentiary record, and the legal and factual constraints bearing on the Decision ( [NAME] at paras 83, 99, 105-108, 120-123, 125-126). [ 44 ] I am satisfied that it was reasonable for the [NAME] to conclude that the Applicant did not establish the $5,000 CERB income requirement. The Applicant’s submitted documents were incomplete or did not reconcile with the income claimed. The Applicant confirmed to the [NAME] that he had no further documents to submit. [ 45 ] The Applicant also argues that the [NAME] applied the eligibility rule too rigidly. I do not accept that submission. The $5,000 threshold was not a discretionary guideline; it was a statutory condition of eligibility. The [NAME] had no authority to waive the statutory eligibility requirement because the Applicant’s work was informal or because the Applicant believed he had earned enough. [ 46 ] The [NAME] reasonably found that Applicant had not established qualifying income of at least $5,000 on the materials before the [NAME]. The Decision is transparent, intelligible, and justified.

VII. Conclusion [ 47 ] The application for judicial review is dismissed. [ 48 ] The Respondent seeks no costs. No costs are awarded.

JUDGMENT in T-3741-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application is dismissed. No costs are awarded. "Michael D. Manson" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-3741-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: May 27, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: MANSON J. DATED: June 11, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The ApplicanT (ON HIS OWN BEHALF) Randy Ramoodit For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent