Federal Court Rejects CERB Ineligibility Appeal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260703 Docket: T-4416-25 Citation: 2026 FC 900 Toronto, Ontario, July 3, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Justice D’[NAME]: [APPELLANT] 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 October 14, 2025 [the Decision], relating to the Applicant’s eligibility for the Canda Emergency Response Benefit [CERB] and the Canada Recovery Benefit [CRB]. [ 2 ] The Officer found that the Applicant was ineligible for CERB because she earned more than $1,000 of employment or self-employment income during the applicable payment period. For CRB, the Officer found the Applicant was ineligible because she did not have a 50% reduction in her average weekly income compared to the previous year due to COVID-19. [ 3 ] The Applicant only advances arguments regarding the reasonableness of the CERB portion of the Decision. As such, I will not address CRB further. [ 4 ] As explained in further detail below, this application for judicial review is dismissed because the Decision is reasonable.

II. Background A. The factual context [ 5 ] The Applicant applied for and received benefits from CERB for Period 7, which was from August 30, 2020, to September 26, 2020. [ 6 ] The [NAME] required the Applicant to provide documents confirming her eligibility for the benefit payments. The Applicant provided further documentation that was received by the [NAME] on July 18, 2024. [ 7 ] On October 30, 2024, a [NAME] officer advised the Applicant that she was ineligible for CERB because she earned more than $1,000 of employment or self-employment income during the applicable payment period. On November 13, 2024, the Applicant requested a second review and provided further submissions and supporting documents concerning her eligibility. B. Decision under Review [ 8 ] By letter dated October 14, 2025, the Officer conveyed the Decision which is the subject of this application for judicial review [the Decision Letter]. The Officer again determined that the Applicant was ineligible for CERB because she earned more than $1,000 of employment or self-employment income during the applicable payment period. [ 9 ] The Officer’s internal notes [the 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 ). The Officer noted that the Applicant provided her personal bank statements for September 2020 to February 2021, and an excel sheet demonstrating her income breakdown as an independent contractor from October 2019 to August 2020. [ 10 ] The Officer’s Notes further demonstrates their conclusion that the documentation did not show how the Applicant paid themselves personally from the business. The [NAME] could not reach the Applicant to gather an explanation addressing her personal income or personal bank statements from the entirety of 2020. The Officer noted that the documentation demonstrated that the Applicant reported $6,000 of income in 2020; however, the excel spreadsheet demonstrated $18,000 of business income, and the bank statements from the business show that the business billed around $60,000 from January to September of 2020.

III. The Legislative Framework [ 11 ] The legislative framework was summarized by Justice Ngo in [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 497 at paragraphs 25 to 26:

25. The CERB was created under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act , SC 2020, c 5, s 8 [CERB Act]. Under section 2 of the CERB Act, only workers who can prove, for 2019 or in the 12‑month period preceding the day on which they make an application, that they had at least $5,000 in employment or self‑employment income are eligible for the CERB. Then, section 6 of the CERB Act requires that the worker, whether employed or self‑employed, ceased working for reasons related to COVID‑19.

26. The CERB 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 ] In [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2026 FC 612, Justice Ahmed succinctly explained the Income Support Payment (Excluded Nominal Income) Regulations , SOR/2020-90 at paragraph 8: Additionally, the CERB Act, along side the Income Support Payment (Excluded Nominal Income) Regulations , SOR/2020-90 (“ Regulations ”), sets out a maximum income that benefit recipients may receive during the 14 days in which they claim their employment was affected by Covid-19 (the “Maximum Income Threshold”). According to the Regulations in force in April 2020, a worker remains eligible for the CERB so long as the income they received in the applicable period remains $1,000 or less (CERB Act, s 6(1)(b)(i); Regulations , s 1). [ 13 ] 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 [ Flock ] at paras 4, 7).

IV. Issues and Standard of Review [ 14 ] The Respondent raises as a preliminary issue that the Applicant cites the “[NAME]) v [NAME], 2023 FCA 169” , but the style of cause and neutral citation do not correspond. [ 15 ] At the hearing for this matter, the Applicant asked the Court to disregard this case, and as such, the Court will do so. [ 16 ] The sole issue for the Court’s determination in this judicial review is whether the Decision is reasonable. [ 17 ] The parties submit and I agree that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [RESPONDENT] ] at paras 16–17).

V. Analysis [ 18 ] As the Respondent identifies, 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 ( [APPELLANT] at para 100). [ 19 ] The Applicant submits that the Decision lacks an intelligible explanation for rejecting the Applicant’s evidence. The Applicant highlighted in her oral submissions that she provided various documentation including bank records, transaction summaries and work records. The Applicant submits that the Officer erred by failing to meaningfully state why this documentation was not sufficient. Additionally, the Applicant argues that the Officer did not distinguish earnings within and outside the applicable payment period. [ 20 ] In her oral submissions, the Applicant clarified that she understood that she could apply for the benefit payments because she was not making or collecting income after August 2020 and until she started another job. The Applicant explained that she was hired as an independent contractor by the agency “[NAME]” , which paid her for her services to her business account. [ 21 ] Consistent with the concerns of the Respondent articulated at the hearing, I will focus on the evidence that was before the Officer ( Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v [NAME] (Access Copyright) , 2012 FCA 22 at paras 19–20). [ 22 ] The Respondent argues that the Decision is reasonable because there is no indication that the Officer misapprehended or failed to account for the documentation provided by the Applicant. The Respondent submits that the Officer’s Notes form part of the reasons and demonstrates that the Officer considered the Applicant’s documents and explanations. [ 23 ] In the Respondent’s oral submissions, the Respondent highlighted that the record before this Court demonstrates that the evidence before the Officer indicated that the Applicant’s business was paid $2,288.25 on September 15, 2020, which was during Period 7. The Respondent directed the Court to the bank statements, and the Applicant’s submissions to the [NAME] dated November 13, 2024. [ 24 ] The Respondent also submits that it is apparent from the record before the Court, and the Officer’s Notes that the Officer was unable to determine how the Applicant paid herself from the business based on the documentation provided. The Respondent highlighted that the business received a large sum of income, but the Applicant only reported $6,000 in personal income. The Respondent argues that the Applicant did not respond to the Officer’s voicemail seeking to clarify how the Applicant paid herself. [ 25 ] In light of the record before the Court, I agree that the Officer’s reasons for the Decision – which include the Officer’s Notes ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1571 at para 24) – provide an intelligible and justified explanation for the Decision. As the Respondent identifies, the Applicant had to establish her eligibility for the CERB benefit payments through demonstrating personal income received from the business, but did not provide primary documentation that established how she paid herself from her business ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2026 FC 675 at paras 33–34). [ 26 ] Additionally, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the Officer failed to distinguish income within and outside the applicable benefit payment period. The Applicant has not identified where the Officer engaged in this error in the record before the Court. Based on a review of the Officer’s Notes, it is not apparent that the Officer erred in this manner. As previously mentioned, the income received on September 15, 2020 was within Period 7. [ 27 ] Therefore, the Decision is reasonable as the Officer’s reasons are justified, transparent and intelligible in relation to the facts and law. Further, the Officer’s reasoning is rational and logical. On judicial review, it is not the role of the reviewing court to reweigh the evidence provided to the [NAME], or “re make” the decision regarding the applicant’s eligibility for CERB ( [APPELLANT] at para 125; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 197 at para 27).

VI. Conclusion [ 28 ] Based on the reasons above, this application for judicial review is dismissed because the Decision is reasonable. [ 29 ] The Respondent has not sought costs.

JUDGMENT in T-4416-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This application for judicial review is dismissed. No costs are awarded. “[NAME]” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-4416-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: tORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 29, 2026

REASONS and judgment: [APPELLANT] J. DATED: JUly 3, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] [NAME] (Self-represented) [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent