Federal Court Rejects Challenge to CRB and CERB Eligibility

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260526 Docket: T-3224-25 T-3226-25 Citation: 2026 FC 675 Ottawa, Ontario, May 26, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Southcott BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] This decision addresses two applications for judicial review, challenging decisions by an officer [the Officer] of the Canada Revenue Agency [the [NAME]] dated July 30, 2025 [the Decisions], related to the Applicant’s eligibility for the Canada Recovery Benefit [CRB] and the Canada Emergency Response Benefit [CERB]. [ 2 ] As explained in greater detail below, these applications are dismissed, because the Decisions are reasonable.

II. Background [ 3 ] The Applicant is a shareholder and sole owner of [APPELLANT] [the [APPELLANT]]. The Applicant applied for CRB and CERB and subsequently received CRB payments from September 27, 2020, to October 23, 2021, and CERB payments from March 14, 2020, to September 26, 2020. [ 4 ] By correspondence dated February 14, 2023, the [NAME] required the Applicant to provide documents confirming his eligibility for the payments – in particular, proof of earnings over $5,000 in the relevant periods preceding his applications for benefits. [ 5 ] The Applicant provided documents to the [NAME], including a letter from his accounting firm, and submitted that he earned non-eligible dividends of $26,100 in 2019, reflected as a taxable dividend of $30,015 on his T1 for 2019. [ 6 ] On September 22, 2023, a [NAME] officer advised the Applicant that he was ineligible for CERB and CRB, because he did not earn at least $5000 in the relevant periods before he submitted his applications. [ 7 ] The Applicant requested a second review of his eligibility and provided additional supporting documents to the [NAME]. On July 9, 2025, the Applicant and a representative of his accounting firm participated in a telephone call with the Officer, and the [NAME] subsequently submitted to the [NAME] a letter dated July 17, 2025, providing answers to questions that the Officer had posed during that call.

III. Decisions under Review [ 8 ] By correspondence dated July 30, 2025, the Officer conveyed the Decisions to the Applicant, again finding that he was ineligible for CERB and CRB because he did not earn at least $5,000 of employment or self-employment income in the relevant periods. [ 9 ] The Officer’s notes, which inform an understanding of the reasons for the Decisions, include the following entry on July 28, 2025: Decision: [NAME] only provided letters from their accountant, a copy of the income tax and benefit return, schedule 3 for dividends received, T5 summery [sic] for 2019, and the invoices provided by their business to the clients. These documents are not sufficient to determine [NAME]’s income because the invoices are corresponding to [NAME]’s business’s revenue and not their own earnings. [NAME] was requested to submit business and personal bank statements for 2019, 2020, or 12 months prior to the first application to prove that they earned over $5k. However, the deadline have been passed [sic] and the bank statements are not provided. [NAME] does not have history of reporting any dividends before and after 2019. So, based on the information we have on file and the documents provided, [NAME] will not be eligible for any CRB 1-16, 18-28 and CERB 1-7 periods because $5k income criteria is not met.

IV. Issues and Standard of Review [ 10 ] Based on the parties’ written and oral submissions, I would articulate the issues raised by the parties for the Court’s determination as follows: Has the Applicant submitted new evidence that is inadmissible on judicial review? Has the Applicant established that he was deprived of procedural fairness? Is the Decision reasonable? [ 11 ] As reflected in the articulation of the last issue above and as the parties concur, the merits of the Decision are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ] at paras 16-17). [ 12 ] The correctness standard of review applies to the to procedural fairness issue ( Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2020 FCA 196 at para 35). Put otherwise, the Court is required to assess whether the procedure followed was fair having regard to all the circumstances ( Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at para 54). [ 13 ] Also, in connection with the procedural fairness issue, there is a preliminary question as to whether that issue is properly before the Court. I will address that question when turning my attention to the procedural fairness issue.

V. Analysis A. Has the Applicant submitted new evidence that is inadmissible on judicial review? [ 14 ] The Respondent argues that, in considering the reasonableness of the Decision, the Court should disregard the following documents attached as exhibits to the affidavit of the Applicant, sworn on October 14, 2025 [the Applicant’s Affidavit], and included in his Application Records in support of these applications for judicial review [the Disputed Evidence]: a) Copy of the [COMPANY] general ledger for 2019 (labeled as Exhibit A); b) Copy of the [COMPANY] general ledger for 2020 (labeled as Exhibit B); and c) Copy of the [COMPANY] general ledger for 2021 (labeled as Exhibit C). [ 15 ] In support of its position in these applications, the Respondent observes that the Applicant’s written submissions acknowledge that the Disputed Evidence was not before the Officer. Relying on that acknowledgment, the Respondent notes that, in reviewing the reasonableness of an administrative decision (and subject to exceptions that the Respondent submits do not apply in the matter at hand), a court will typically consider only the evidence that was before the administrative decision-maker when the decision was made ( Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v. [NAME] ([NAME]) , 2012 FCA 22 at paras 19-20). [ 16 ] In oral submissions at the hearing, the Applicant took the position that the Disputed Evidence is admissible under the background information exception explained in [NAME] , i.e., that a court will sometimes receive an affidavit that provides general background that might assist it in understanding the issues relevant to the judicial review but that is not evidence relevant to the merits of the matter (at para 20). [ 17 ] I am not convinced that the Disputed Evidence is admissible under this exception. The Applicant’s counsel confirmed in his oral submissions that he has not referred to the Disputed Evidence in his submissions as a source of background information for the Court. I can see that evidence of this sort could potentially be relevant to establishing the payment of dividend income, but such use would go to the merits of this matter. As the Respondent requests, the Court will not consider the Disputed Evidence in adjudicating these applications. B. Has the Applicant established that he was deprived of procedural fairness? [ 18 ] The Applicant seeks to argue that he was deprived of procedural fairness, in that he was not afforded an opportunity to know the case he had to meet and then to make his own case. The Applicant submits that the Officer failed to inform him that personal and corporate bank statements would be a determinative issue in the adjudication of his eligibility. The Applicant further takes the position that the Officer was obliged to inform him (before making the Decisions) that the documents he provided to support his eligibility would be insufficient proof thereof and to afford him a further opportunity to provide additional support. [ 19 ] In relation to the preliminary question noted earlier in these Reasons, the Respondent takes the position that these procedural fairness arguments are not properly before the Court, because the Applicant’s Notices of Application, filed on August 29, 2025, do not identify procedural fairness as a ground of review. The Respondent relies on Rule 301 of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR/98-106, which provides that an application for judicial review shall be commenced by a notice of application [NOA] that includes, among other things, a complete and concise statement of the grounds intended to be argued. The Respondent further notes that the Applicant’s Memoranda of Fact and Law [the Applicant’s Memoranda] identify a list of issues for the Court’s adjudication ((a) the documents admissible on judicial review; and (b) the reasonableness of the Decisions), which does not include procedural fairness. [ 20 ] At the hearing, the parties made submissions on whether certain paragraphs of the Applicant’ s Memoranda advance procedural fairness arguments, notwithstanding that those arguments are found under a subheading of the reasonableness issue. The parties also provided submissions on jurisprudence that speaks to whether (and under which circumstances) the Court has the discretion to allow issues to be raised that were not identified in the relevant NOA as required by Rule 301. In particular, in [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FC 1562 [ [NAME] ], Justice Turley held that the Court itself has the discretion to raise a new legal issue, even if it not identified by the applicant in its NOA, where failing to do so would risk an injustice. [ 21 ] However, in Canada (Attorney General) v [COMPANY], 2021 FCA 244 [ [NAME] ], the Federal Court of Appeal noted that the requirements of Rule 301 are not merely technical, as they ensure among other things that respondents have adequate notice of the case being brought against them so that they can meaningfully respond (at para 41). [NAME] noted that decisions of the Federal Court have referenced a discretion in the application of Rule 301, for example, where relevant matters have arisen after the NOA was filed; the new issues have some merit, are related to those set out in the NOA, and are supported by the evidentiary record; the respondent would not be prejudiced; and no undue delay would result. However, [NAME] explained that the Federal Court of Appeal had resisted expanding the availability of such an exception beyond cases in which the NOA contains a “basket clause” and the applicant seeks declaratory relief that is necessarily ancillary to the relief expressly requested in the NOA (at para 42). [ 22 ] In support of his position that the Court should exercise discretion of the sort referenced in these authorities, the Applicant emphasizes that the Officer’s notes were not available to the Applicant when he filed his NOAs. He submits that it is those notes, which inform an understanding of the reasons for the Decisions, that give rise to the Applicant’s concerns about procedural fairness, and that the interests of justice therefore militate in favour of allowing him to advance his procedural fairness arguments, although he is not adverse to the Respondent being afforded a further post-hearing opportunity to provide written submissions on this issue. [ 23 ] The circumstances of the matter at hand are somewhat distinct from those in [NAME] , in which the Applicant was self-represented and the procedural fairness issue was raised not by the Applicant but by the Court itself. Also, while I agree with the Applicant’s position that he would not necessarily have had the information required to identify a procedural fairness concern when he filed his NOAs, it was available to him to seek to amend his NOAs to include breach of procedural fairness as a ground of review after that information became available. He did not do so and, in the Applicant’s Memoranda, he failed to expressly identify procedural fairness as an issue or to otherwise clearly identify procedural fairness arguments as a ground of review distinct from his reasonableness arguments. [ 24 ] [NAME] raises doubt as to the availability or scope of the Court’s discretion to entertain an issue that has not been raised in the NOA, I need not resolve that jurisprudential question in the matter at hand. Even if I were to accept that the discretion exists within the scope that [NAME] explains has been identified in the Federal Court jurisprudence, I note the reference to the Court exercising that discretion where, among other things, “the new issues have some merit” (at para 42). As explained below, I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s procedural fairness arguments have sufficient merit to warrant further examination. [ 25 ] As the Respondent argued at the hearing of this application, in [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 905, Justice Blackhawk provided the following explanation of an applicant’s onus to provide all necessary information in support of their application at the time of the application (at para 44):

44. Generally, an applicant has the onus to “put their best foot forward,” in other words, they must provide all necessary information in support of their application. There is no obligation on the part of an officer to provide an applicant with an opportunity to clarify, provide additional supporting information, or explain elements of their application. Officers are not required to provide a procedural fairness letter or interview an applicant where an application falls short of the statutory requirements ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 1613 at paras 19–20). [ 26 ] While this explanation was provided in connection with an application for immigration status, I agree with the Respondent’s position that such principles apply more generally in the context of administrative decision-making. At the hearing, the Applicant did not identify any authorities that reference an obligation on a [NAME] officer conducting a second review of CRB or CRB eligibility, in the absence of concerns about credibility or authenticity of documentation, to provide applicants with successive opportunities to improve the sufficiency of documentation provided in support of their eligibility for benefits. [ 27 ] Moreover, it is clear from the Officer’s notes of the July 9, 2025, telephone conversation with the Applicant and his accountant that: (a) the Applicant was required to demonstrate his dividend income in order to support his benefits eligibility; and (b) the Officer expressly identified business and personal bank statements among the types of documents that the Applicant should provide in order to support such eligibility. [ 28 ] As such, I do not find the Applicant’s procedural fairness arguments to be of sufficient merit to warrant further analysis of the Court’s discretion as cited in the authorities referenced above, or to require affording the Respondent a further opportunity to address those arguments through written representations. C. Is the Decision reasonable? [ 29 ] The Applicant submits that the Decisions demonstrate errors of the sort that [NAME] identifies as characteristic of unreasonable administrative decision-making, including the decision-maker failing to engage with the evidence submitted and failing to articulate an intelligible chain of reasoning in support of the decision. The Applicant also emphasizes that it is not available to the Respondent or the Court to supplement the reasons of the Officer, if an intelligible chain of reasoning is not discernible from the record before the Court. [ 30 ] I agree with the Applicant’s description of categories of errors that are fatal to the ability of a decision to withstand judicial review, and I further agree it is the Officer’s obligation to provide intelligible reasons for the Decisions. However, as explained below, I am not convinced that the Applicant has identified any reviewable error in the Decisions. [ 31 ] While other elements of the Officer’s notes, and the information and documentation that the Applicant provided to the Officer, assist in informing an understanding of the reasons for the Decisions, the July 28, 2025 entry in the Officer’s notes is perhaps the most significant element of the record before the Court. While this entry is cited earlier in these Reasons, I will repeat it for ease of reference: Decision: [NAME] only provided letters from their accountant, a copy of the income tax and benefit return, schedule 3 for dividends received, T5 summery [sic] for 2019, and the invoices provided by their business to the clients. These documents are not sufficient to determine [NAME]’s income because the invoices are corresponding to [NAME]’s business’s revenue and not their own earnings. [NAME] was requested to submit business and personal bank statements for 2019, 2020, or 12 months prior to the first application to prove that they earned over $5k. However, the deadline have been passed [sic] and the bank statements are not provided. [NAME] does not have history of reporting any dividends before and after 2019. So, based on the information we have on file and the documents provided, [NAME] will not be eligible for any CRB 1-16, 18-28 and CERB 1-7 periods because $5k income criteria is not met. [ 32 ] In this entry, the Officer identifies the principal documentation that the Applicant had provided, including letters from his accountant, his income tax filings including the T5 summary for 2019, and the [COMPANY] invoices to its clients. The Officer then makes two principal observations based on that documentation: (a) the [COMPANY] invoices evidence [APPELLANT] earnings but not the Applicant’s earnings through dividends from the [APPELLANT]; and (b) the Applicant failed to provide business and personal bank statements as he had been requested to do. [ 33 ] As noted earlier in these Reasons, it is clear from the record before the [NAME]’s communications with the Applicant that, in order to establish his eligibility for the relevant benefits, the Applicant was required to demonstrate the dividend income that he received from the [RESPONDENT]. I agree with the Respondent’s submission that the Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant had met that obligation, because he failed to provide any primary documentation evidencing his receipt of income from the [COMPANY]. While the [COMPANY] invoices represented documentation of its income from its customers, the Applicant failed to provide comparable documentation (such as bank statements) of his income from the [COMPANY]. [ 34 ] I also note that the circumstances of this case are distinguishable from those in other authorities of this Court (e.g., [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 1670 at para 15; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 951), in which negative second review decisions based on the absence of bank statements were found unreasonable because the evidence was that the applicant’s income was paid in cash and not deposited in the bank. In the case at hand, the accountant’s July 17, 2025 letter explained that, while the amounts may not exactly match those of the dividend, the dividend payments to the Applicant were made by e-transfer from the [APPELLANT] bank account to the Applicant’s personal bank account (and occasionally by the [APPELLANT] paying the Applicant’s personal expenses in lieu of transferring cash). [ 35 ] I also agree with the Respondent’s position that it was reasonable for the Officer not to accept the tax filing documentation, and in particular the 2019 T5 summary, as sufficient evidence of the Applicant’s receipt of dividends. As explained in [APPELLANT] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1632 [ [NAME] ] at paragraph 31, in the context of a [NAME], the filing of a T5 slip is not determinative of eligibility for benefits. [ 36 ] Similarly, I find it reasonable for the Officer not to have accepted the accountant’s communications as sufficient evidence. As Justice St-Louis commented at paragraph 28 of [NAME] , such a finding does not question the good faith of the [NAME]. Rather, as previously explained, I interpret the Officer’s reasoning as based on the Applicant’s failure to provide primary documentation to evidence his dividend income, in circumstances where such documentation was requested and available. [ 37 ] In summary, I find the Officer’s engagement with the available evidence, and the intelligibility of the reasoning apparent from the record before the Court, to be sufficient for the Decisions to withstand judicial review.

VI. Conclusion and Costs [ 38 ] Based on the above conclusions, my Judgment will dismiss these applications for judicial review. While the Respondent has prevailed in these applications, it does not seek costs. As such, no costs will be awarded.

JUDGMENT in T-3224-25 and T-3226-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: These applications are dismissed. No costs are awarded. "Richard F. Southcott" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-3224-25 and T-3226-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: may 21, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: SOUTHCOTT J. DATED: may 26, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME] [APPELLANT] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT