Federal Court Rejects Challenge to CRB Eligibility Decision

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260702 Docket: T-2035-24 Citation: 2026 FC 893 Toronto, Ontario, July 2, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, [APPELLANT], seeks judicial review of a decision made by the Canada Revenue Agency ([NAME]) to deny his eligibility for the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB). He claims that the decision is unreasonable for its unresponsiveness to the evidence, and unfair because he was not provided a meaningful opportunity to address the [NAME]’s concerns. [ 2 ] For the reasons below, the decision is reasonable and the process followed by the [NAME] was fair. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

II. Background [ 3 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] was a self-employed financial advisor when he applied for CRB on January 5, 2021. He received benefits for the period of December 20, 2020, to October 23, 2021. [ 4 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] was contacted by the [NAME] on March 27, 2023, to confirm that he was eligible for CRB benefits, specifically, to confirm that he could demonstrate a net income over $5,000.00 for the qualifying periods. [ 5 ] The [NAME] then determined Mr. [APPELLANT] to be ineligible, because he self-reported a net income of only $1590.00 on his T1 tax forms for 2019. Mr. [APPELLANT] confirmed via telephone call that he incurred expenses of approximately $28,000.00 in 2019 associated with self-employment work. The [NAME] found that his reported gross income for 2019 on his T1 tax return was roughly $39,000.00. Similarly, his stated net income for 2020 was $1,071.00. [ 6 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] challenged this decision by requesting a [NAME]. He claimed that his net income in the 12 months prior to the date of his application met the $5,000.00 threshold, which is distinct from the net income requirements for the 2019 and 2020 tax years. The [NAME] requested that Mr. [APPELLANT] submit expense documents and bank statements for the 12 months prior to his application, but these were not provided. [ 7 ] The [NAME]’s decision on the [NAME] found that Mr. [APPELLANT] was ineligible because he did not earn at least $5,000.00 in net self-employment income in 2019, 2020 or in the 12 months before the date of his application. The [NAME] stated that they could not calculate the net income of Mr. [APPELLANT] during the 12-month period before his application because he did not provide the list of expenses they requested. The [NAME] also found that Mr. [APPELLANT] did not earn at least $5,000.00 based on his tax return for 2019.

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 8 ] As a preliminary issue, the Respondent objects to the admissibility of the Applicant’s Affidavit contained in the Applicant’s record, which was not the same affidavit served on the Respondent pursuant to the Rule 306 of the Federal Court Rules , SOR/98-106 [ The Rules ]. The Respondent is correct and the Affidavit will not be considered by the Court. [ 9 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] argues the decision is unreasonable for failing to take account of his evidence. This issue will be considered pursuant to the reasonableness standard set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ], affirmed in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21. A reasonable decision must bear the hallmarks of justification, transparency and intelligibility ( [NAME] at para 99). [ 10 ] The assessment of whether a breach of procedural fairness has taken place does not involve a standard of review. Instead, a reviewing court asks, “with a sharp focus on the nature of the substantive rights involved and the consequences to the individual, whether a fair and just process was followed” ( [COMPANY] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at para 54. See also [NAME] v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Protection) , 2022 FC 1482 at para 4).

IV. Analysis A. The decision of ineligibility is reasonable [ 11 ] Section 3(1)(d) of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act , being part 2 of the COVID-19 Response Measures Act, SC 2020, c 12, required that Mr. [APPELLANT] had a total income of at least $5,000.00 in 2019 or in the 12-month period prior to their application. The determinative issue in this case is whether the evidence before the [NAME] supported the conclusion that Mr. [APPELLANT] did not establish his eligibility. [ 12 ] The [NAME] reported that Mr. [APPELLANT]’s expenses were necessary to determine his net income for the 12-month period prior to his application. He was requested to provide those expenses, but he did not do so. By failing to provide the requested information, he also failed to establish his eligibility for the benefits he received ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 980 at para 26). Mr. [APPELLANT] alleges that “evidence” was ignored by the [NAME] but does not identify any information in the record that established his eligibility. B. There was no unfairness in the decision-making process [ 13 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] argues that he was deprived of the opportunity to know the case he had to meet. The burden of proof to establish that a breach of procedural fairness occurred rests with him ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2011 FC 448 at para 49; [COMPANY] v [COMPANY] , 2015 ONSC 2058 at para 52). [ 14 ] The record reveals that Mr. [APPELLANT] was specifically advised to provide a list of his expenses for the 12-month period prior to his application, but he did not provide the information requested. There is nothing in the record that suggests he was treated unfairly.

V. Conclusion [ 15 ] The [NAME]’s decision is reasonable, because Mr. [APPELLANT] failed to provide information establishing that he was eligible for the benefits he received. Given that he was specifically advised to provide the information required to establish his eligibility, there was no breach of fairness. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.

JUDGMENT in T-2035-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed without costs. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: t-2035-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: JULY 2, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: JULY 2, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT]-REPRESENTED (ON HIS OWN BEHALF) [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent