Federal Court Rejects Challenge to CERB Eligibility Decision

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260616 Docket: T-3197-25 Citation: 2026 FC 812 Toronto, Ontario, June 16, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE [NAME] [NAME] OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, [APPELLANT], received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit [CERB] for seven four-week periods between March 15, 2020 and September 26, 2020. At the time she received the CERB she was a full-time graduate [NAME] and from March through to the end of June 2020, was working one full day a week and an additional one and a half days semi-monthly as a teacher with the [COMPANY]. [ 2 ] The Canada Revenue Agency [[NAME]] reviewed the Applicant’s eligibility for the CERB and found she was ineligible for benefits periods 1-4 because she had earned more than $1,000 in employment or self-employment income during each of these benefit periods. [ 3 ] In this judicial review of the second level review decision, which was issued on August 11, 2025 [Decision], the Applicant does not challenge the officer’s assessment of her eligibility for the CERB. Rather, she argues that the Decision does not demonstrate that the officer considered her status as a [NAME] or that they turned their mind to the separate benefits offered under the [NAME] , SC 2020, c 7 [CESBA] and through the Certain Emergency Response Benefits Remission Order , SI/2022-32 [Remission Order] because the Decision is silent on these aspects. [ 4 ] However, as set out further below, both the CESBA and the Remission Order require that an application be made before an individual can be eligible for benefits. Here, the Applicant acknowledges she did not apply for the [NAME] [[NAME]], nor did she make an application under the Remission Order. Further, she did not demonstrate her eligibility for either benefit to the officer. [ 5 ] The Applicant has not established that the Decision was unreasonable. Nor has she established any breach of procedural fairness. As such, the application must be dismissed.

II. Statutory Scheme - CESBA and Remission Order [ 6 ] The CESBA came into effect in May 2020 with the aim of providing emergency financial relief to students and recent graduates who were unable to work, or unable to find work, due to reasons related to COVID-19. Eligibility for the [NAME] is set out in subsection 6(1) of the CESBA as follows: 6 (1) A [NAME] is eligible for a [NAME] if (a) for reasons related to the coronavirus disease 2019 and whether as an employee or in self-employment, they are unable to work, are seeking work and unable to find it, or are working but are paid less than the amount determined under the regulations, during the four-week period for which they apply for the benefit; and (b) they do not, in respect of any part of that four-week period, receive (i) subject to the regulations, income from employment or self-employment, (ii) benefits, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, or an employment insurance emergency response benefit referred to in section 153.7 of that Act, (iii) allowances, money or other benefits that would be paid to the [NAME] under a provincial plan because of pregnancy or in respect of the care by the [NAME] of one or more of their new-born children or one or more children placed with them for the purpose of adoption, (iv) an income support payment under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act, or (v) any other income that is prescribed by regulation. 6 (1) Est admissible à la prestation canadienne d’urgence pour étudiants l’[NAME] qui remplit les conditions suivantes : a) pour des raisons liées à la maladie à coronavirus 2019, pendant la période de quatre semaines pour laquelle [NAME] présente sa demande, [NAME] est incapable d’exercer un emploi ou d’exécuter un travail pour son compte, [NAME] est incapable de trouver un emploi ou du travail à exécuter malgré les recherches qu’[NAME] fait en ce sens ou [NAME] exerce un emploi ou exécute un travail pour son compte dont la rémunération est inférieure au montant prévu par règlement; b) [NAME] ne reçoit pas, pour toute partie de cette période : (i) sous réserve des règlements, de revenus provenant d’un emploi ou d’un travail qu’[NAME] exécute pour son compte, (ii) de prestations, au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi sur l’assurance-emploi , ou la prestation d’assurance-emploi d’urgence visée à l’article 153.7 de cette loi, (iii) d’allocations, de prestations ou d’autres sommes qui lui seraient payées, en vertu d’un régime provincial, en cas de grossesse ou de soins à donner par lui à son ou ses nouveau-nés ou à un ou plusieurs enfants placés chez lui en vue de leur adoption, (iv) d’allocation de soutien du revenu versée sous le régime de la Loi sur la prestation canadienne d’urgence , (v) d’autres revenus prévus par règlement. [ 7 ] Pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(a) of the CESBA and section 5 of the [NAME] , SOR/2020-105 [[NAME]] (set out below), to qualify for the [NAME], an applicant must have received less than $1,000 in employment or self-employment income in each four-week benefit period. Maximum allowable income 5 (1) An amount of income of $1000.01 is determined for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Act. Rémunération maximale 5 (1) Pour l’application de l’alinéa 6(1)a) de la Loi, le montant de rémunération est de mille dollars et un cent. [ 8 ] The Remission Order came into effect in June 2022. It provided relief for students who received CERB payments, were later found ineligible for the CERB, and would have instead been eligible for the [NAME]. Pursuant to subsection 1(1) of the Remission Order, the following criteria had to be satisfied to obtain remission: 1 (1) Remission of the amount determined under subsection (2) is granted to any person who meets the following conditions: (a) the person received an income support payment under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act for a four-week period in which they were not eligible for the payment, and the person has repaid or is to repay the payment under subsection 12(1) of that Act; (b) for that four-week period, the person would have been eligible for a [NAME] under the [NAME] if they had not received the income support payment for that period; (c) the person did not receive a [NAME] for that period; (d) the person applied for the income support payment for that period not later than September 30, 2020; (e) the person files with [NAME], not later than December 31, 2022, a return of income under the Income Tax Act in respect of each of the 2019 and 2020 taxation years; and (f) the person applies for the remission in the form and manner specified by the Minister of Employment and Social Development. 1 (1) Est accordée, à toute [NAME] qui satisfait aux conditions ci-après, remise d’une somme déterminée conformément au paragraphe (2) : a) la [NAME] a reçu l’allocation de soutien du revenu au titre de la Loi sur la prestation canadienne d’urgence pour une période de quatre semaines au cours de laquelle [NAME] n’y était pas admissible et [NAME] a restitué ou est tenue de restituer le trop-perçu de cette allocation en application du paragraphe 12(1) de cette loi; b) [NAME] aurait été admissible à la prestation canadienne d’urgence pour étudiants prévue par la Loi sur la prestation canadienne d’urgence pour étudiants , pour cette période de quatre semaines, si [NAME] n’avait pas reçu l’allocation de soutien du revenu pour cette période; c) [NAME] n’a pas reçu la prestation canadienne d’urgence pour étudiants pour cette période; d) [NAME] a présenté, au plus tard le 30 septembre 2020, la demande d’allocation de soutien du revenu pour cette période; e) [NAME] présente, au plus tard le 31 décembre 2022, des déclarations de revenus au [NAME] du Revenu national au titre de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu pour chacune des années d’imposition 2019 et 2020; f) [NAME] présente une demande de remise selon les modalités précisées par le [NAME] de l’Emploi et du Développement social. [ 9 ] Both the CESBA and the Remission Order required that an application be made before an individual could be eligible for benefits under the CESBA and relief under the Remission Order: CESBA, sections 4 and 5 (set out below); Remission Order, paragraph 1(1)(f) (set out above). Payment of benefit 4 The Minister must pay a [NAME] to a [NAME] who makes an application under section 5 and who is eligible for the benefit. Application 5 (1) A [NAME] may, in the form and manner established by the Minister, apply for a [NAME] for any four-week period falling within the period prescribed by regulation. Versement de la prestation 4 Le [NAME] verse la prestation canadienne d’urgence pour étudiants à l’[NAME] qui présente une demande en vertu de l’article 5 et qui y est admissible. Demande 5 (1) [NAME] peut, selon les modalités — notamment de forme — fixées par le [NAME], demander la prestation canadienne d’urgence pour étudiants pour toute période de quatre semaines comprise dans la période prévue par règlement.

III. Analysis A. The Decision was reasonable [ 10 ] [ADDRESS] reviews decisions regarding eligibility for COVID-19 related benefits on a standard of reasonableness: [NAME] v Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2026 FCA 61 at para 7. A reasonable decision is one that is based on “an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” : Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 at para 85. [ 11 ] A decision is not unreasonable where it is silent on legislation and benefits that are not applicable to an applicant: [redacted] [ 12 ] In the Decision, the officer engaged with the legislation and the benefit that had been applied for by the Applicant, namely the CERB. The officer noted in their T1 Case Notes that the Applicant was a full-time [NAME]. However, as this fact was not relevant to the determination of the Applicant’s eligibility for the CERB, it did not factor into the Officer’s analysis. [ 13 ] The officer was not obliged to consider the Applicant’s [NAME] status further as the Applicant had not applied for the [NAME] or under the Remission Order, nor had she established that she was eligible for the [NAME]. Indeed, to the contrary, in evaluating the Applicant’s eligibility for the CERB, the officer found the Applicant had received more than $1,000 in employment or self-employment income in benefit periods 1-4. As noted earlier, this disqualified her for the [NAME] (CESBA, subsection 6(1)(a), [NAME], subsection 5(1)) and as a result, also disqualified her from application of the Remission Order (Remission Order, paragraph 1(1)(b)). There was no need for the officer to refer to benefits that were not applicable. B. The Applicant has not established a breach of procedural fairness [ 14 ] For procedural fairness, the Court must determine whether the procedure was fair having regard to the circumstances. The ultimate question is whether the applicant knew the case they had to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond: [COMPANY] v Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras 54-56. [ 15 ] It was the Applicant’s responsibility to provide evidence of her eligibility for the [NAME] Order: [NAME] v Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2025 FC 1605 at para 44. Simply being a [NAME] was not enough. As already noted, the information provided did not demonstrate eligibility for either the [NAME] or under the Remission Order. It was not procedurally unfair for the officer to be silent on these provisions: [NAME] at para 6. [ 16 ] As to any further argument in the Applicant’s written materials that there was procedural unfairness because she was “not provided with sufficient disclosure of the evidence relied upon by [NAME]” for the Decision, I also cannot agree. The evidence referenced by the officer was the same documents supplied by the Applicant. There was nothing new for which further notice was required. [ 17 ] The Applicant has not established a breach of procedural fairness.

IV. Conclusion [ 18 ] For all these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed. As no costs were requested, none are awarded. [ 19 ] The Respondent requested that the style of cause be amended to change the name of the Respondent to the [NAME] [NAME] of Canada. As this is the proper Respondent, I will also make this change as part of my judgment.

JUDGMENT in T-3197-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: The style of cause is amended with immediate effect to change the name of the Respondent to the [NAME] [NAME] of Canada. The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. “[NAME]” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-3197-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v [NAME] OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia DATE OF HEARING: June 11, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [APPELLANT] J. DATED: June 16, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] (ON HER OWN BEHALF) For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] [NAME] of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia For The Respondent