Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Denial of COVID Benefits

Date: 20260526 Docket: T-3528-25 Citation: 2026 FC 677 Toronto, Ontario, May 26, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice A. [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. OVERVIEW [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME], seeks judicial review of a decision by the Canada Revenue Agency [[NAME]] finding that she was not eligible for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, Canada Recovery Benefit, Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit, or the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit [which I will refer to here as the “COVID benefits”]. [ 2 ] While I sympathize with [NAME]’s situation, this application for judicial review must be dismissed because the process was fair, and because the [NAME]’s decision was reasonable, based on the information before it.

II.

BACKGROUND A. Facts [ 3 ] [NAME] applied for and received COVID benefits between March 2020 and December 2021. [ 4 ] One of the eligibility criteria for all the COVID benefits programs is that recipients must have earned at least $5,000 in 2019 or 2020, or in the 12 months before the recipient applied for the program. [ 5 ] After the height of the pandemic, the [NAME] began a process of retrospectively validating the eligibility of those who had been provided COVID benefits. On March 9, 2023, the [NAME] sent [NAME] a letter requesting documentation proving that she had earned at least $5,000 in the relevant periods. A [NAME] agent also called [NAME] on April 11, 2023, explaining the kinds of documents she could provide as proof of income. [ 6 ] The Applicant requested an extension of time on April 18, 2023, advising that she was waiting on statements from her bank. She was verbally granted a 30-day extension. [ 7 ] In May 2023, the Applicant submitted a personal spreadsheet document which contained a list of e-transfer payments from 2019 and 2020. [ 8 ] On October 11, 2023, the [NAME] called the Applicant and requested more information, including, specifically, bank statements to verify the information on the spreadsheets. [ 9 ] On November 22, 2023, the Applicant called the [NAME] and requested further clarification about the information she was required to submit. Despite these conversations, however, no further information was provided. [ 10 ] On December 4, 2023, the [NAME] informed the Applicant that she was not eligible for the COVID benefits she had received. [ 11 ] As she was entitled to do, the Applicant then requested a Second Level Review of her eligibility. The Second Level Review process was lengthy. [NAME] called the [NAME] on at least one occasion, no action appears to have taken place until, according to [NAME] records, July 2025. Those records show that a [NAME] agent called the Applicant twice, first on July 24, 2025, and on July 29, 2025, leaving voicemails indicating that if she did not submit additional supporting documentation by August 7, 2025, the Second Level Review decision would be made based on the information on file. [ 12 ] The Applicant maintains that she did not receive these calls and that there is no record of them in her phone records. [ 13 ] On August 14, 2025, the [NAME] issued its second review decision, which confirmed that the Applicant was not eligible for the COVID benefits she received, because she had not established that she had earned at least $5,000 in the relevant periods.

III. ISSUES and STANDARD OF REVIEW [ 14 ] [NAME] has raised arguments related to both the fairness of the Second Level Review process, and the substance of the ensuing decision. [ 15 ] On questions related to fairness, the role of the Court on judicial review is to determine if the process was fair, in all the circumstances. This, in turn, requires the Court to consider whether the Applicant knew the case to be met and had a full and fair chance to respond: [COMPANY] v Canada (Transportation Agency) , 2021 FCA 69. [ 16 ] On the substance of the Second Level Review decision, the standard of review is reasonableness: He v Canada (Attorney General ), 2022 FC 1503 at para 20; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 1088 at para 12. The reasonableness standard requires that courts exhibit deference to the decisions of officials whom Parliament has entrusted to make those decisions. At the same time, the courts play an important role in ensuring that those decisions are transparent, intelligible, and justified, taking into consideration the relevant facts and applicable law.

IV. ANALYSIS A. Preliminary Matter – The Proper Respondent in this Matter [ 17 ] As a preliminary matter, the Respondent notes that the Canada Revenue Agency was improperly listed as the Respondent in this matter, as the Respondent should be the Attorney General of Canada. I agree and the style of cause will be amended accordingly. B. Procedural Fairness: Was the Second Level Review Process Fair? [ 18 ] Different administrative law contexts require different levels of procedural protections. The protection owed to CERB applicants is often described as being at the low end of this procedural fairness spectrum : [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1571 at para 17. [ 19 ] [NAME] feels that the Second Level Review Process was unfair, largely because she was not provided with a sufficient opportunity to provide documents establishing that she had met the minimum $5,000 income threshold to be eligible for COVID benefits. [ 20 ] Once again, while I am sympathetic to [NAME]’s circumstances, I cannot accept this argument. As noted above, the record discloses that [NAME] had several conversations with [NAME] employees over the course of the review process. In at least some of those conversations, she was specifically instructed that she needed to provide further information to document her income. She also appears to have been given specific examples, such as bank statements, that would have addressed this request. The record further discloses that [NAME] understood this communication and requested more time to provide the requested information, and that her requests were granted. [ 21 ] I understand that, in the Second Level Review process, [NAME] expected to hear from a [NAME] official, and she thought she would receive specific instructions as to what information was required. The fact of the matter, however, is that the [NAME] had already shared this information with her, and she did not provide any follow-up evidence in support of her review request. As such, irrespective of whether the [NAME] did or did not call her in July 2025, I find that [NAME] was apprised of both the case she needed to make, and what kind of information would help her to make this case. The principles of procedural fairness in this context did not require more of the [NAME]. [ 22 ] Beyond this point, there is insufficient evidence before me to conclude that the [NAME] did not leave voicemail messages for [NAME] in July 2025 to inform her of the need to submit further documentation. As noted above, notes in the [NAME] information management system state that calls were made to [NAME] on July 24 and 29, 2025, and that the [NAME] officials left voicemail messages informing her of the need to provide further information by August 7, 2025. [NAME] states that she never received these voicemail messages, and she says that her phone bills help to prove this. [ 23 ] Respectfully, [NAME]’s phone bills are of little assistance. On the contrary, the bills reveal that she did receive incoming calls on both of those days, and while it is unclear whether any of these calls were from the [NAME], it is similarly unclear that they were not from the [NAME]. At best, then, this evidence is neutral. When I weigh this evidence against the apparently contemporaneous notations logged onto the [NAME]’s database documenting the calls made to [NAME], I am left with little evidentiary basis on which to conclude that the [NAME] did not reach out to her prior to issuing its decision. [ 24 ] In the end, however, little turns on this finding, as I find that from the beginning of the review process, [NAME] was adequately informed of the case she needed to meet, and that she had a full and fair chance to provide the requested documentation. [ 25 ] As the Respondent points out, the governing legislation in these matters also creates a positive obligation on COVID benefit applicants to provide information requested by the Minister. Thus, when the [NAME] requested further documentation from the Applicant, she was not only provided with a fair opportunity to support her application, she also had an obligation to provide this documentation: see for example section 6 of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act . [ 26 ] Based on the above, and particularly because procedural fairness obligations in this context fall at the low end of the spectrum, I have concluded that [NAME] has not established that the review process was unfair. C. Was the Second Level Review Decision Reasonable? [ 27 ] Based on the limited information that [NAME] submitted in support of the review process, the decision that she had not established her eligibility for the COVID benefits was reasonable. Throughout the relevant period, [NAME] was self-employed, meaning that the minimum $5,000 income threshold relates to her net income. [ 28 ] As noted above, the only information that [NAME] provided was a spreadsheet, which appears to show e-transfers that she received from clients. While the total of the transfers set out in the spreadsheet exceeds $5,000 for periods in 2019 and 2020, there is no way to know if these payments resulted in a net income above the $5,000 income threshold. [ 29 ] Presumably, this was why [NAME] employees requested, on multiple occasions, that [NAME] provide further documentation. Absent this information, there was simply no basis on which the [NAME] could conclude that [NAME] met the minimum income threshold. As a consequence, the [NAME]’s conclusion that [NAME] had failed to establish her eligibility for COVID benefits was reasonable. D. A Final Consideration [ 30 ] While not raised by either party, there is one final issue that may be relevant for the parties to consider in assessing next steps. As noted above, the central issue in this matter is whether [NAME] met the minimum $5,000 income threshold. As further noted above, the calculation of this threshold relates to net, rather than gross income. However, as I discussed in [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 1469 (at para 20), this was not always made particularly clear, especially to CERB recipients: The [NAME] interpreted this provision as relating to net, rather than gross income. However, because the applicable provision in the CERB Act did not state this explicitly, in 2021 the government issued the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and Employment Insurance Emergency Response Benefit Remission Order …which granted relief to individuals such as the Applicant from the requirement to repay CERB overpayments that arose because of the confusion between net and gross self-employment income requirements. [ 31 ] Once again, it appears that [NAME] may have received gross income over the minimum income threshold, even if it was unclear what her net income was in the relevant periods. For this reason, the question arises as to whether [NAME] ought to benefit from the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and Employment Insurance Emergency Response Benefit Remission Order . I make no determination on this point – I refer to it here only because it may be relevant in informing how, and whether, [NAME] will be expected to repay the benefits she received under the CERB.

V.

CONCLUSION [ 32 ] As a result of the above, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. No costs are awarded.

JUDGMENT in T-3528-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The Application for Judicial Review is dismissed. The style of cause shall be amended to reflect the Attorney General of Canada as the correct Respondent. There is no order as to costs. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-3528-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v CANADA REVENUE AGENCY PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta DATE OF HEARING: May 13, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: May 26, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant (Self-Represented) [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Edmonton, Alberta For The Respondent