Federal Court Rejects Claimant's Appeal for CRB and CERB Benefits

Date: 20260310 Docket: T-1681-25 Citation: 2026 FC 326 Ottawa, Ontario, March 10, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, Ms. [NAME], seeks judicial review of a decision made by the Canadian Revenue Agency ( “[NAME]” ), dated April 17, 2025, in which the [NAME] found [NAME] ineligible for the Canada Recovery Benefits ( “CRB” ) and the Canada Emergency Response Benefit ( “CERB” ). [NAME] determined that [NAME] had failed to demonstrate that she met the $5,000 requirement in employment or net self-employment income. [ 2 ] [NAME] submits that [NAME] did not provide coherent reasons for their determination and failed to provide a procedurally fair process. [ 3 ] Though I am sympathetic to [NAME]’s situation, I have not found any grounds that warrant this Court’s intervention. [ 4 ] In arriving at this conclusion, I am mindful of the fact that [NAME] is a self-represented litigant and I have kept in due regard the Canadian Judicial Council’s Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006), which the Supreme Court endorsed in [NAME] v [NAME] , 2017 SCC 23 at paragraph 4.

II. Background A. Statutory Framework [ 5 ] The CRB is a benefit program introduced by the Canada Recovery Benefits Act , SC 2020, c 12, s 2 ( “CRB Act” ). The CERB is a benefit program introduced by the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act , SC 2020, c 5, s 8 ( “CERB Act” ). [ 6 ] The CRB was created to provide income support for any two-week period beginning on September 27, 2020 and ending on October 23, 2021, to eligible employed and self-employed individuals who were adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 762 at para 2). The CERB provided income support for any four-week period beginning on March 15, 2020, and ending on October 3, 2020 (CERB Act, s 5(1); [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1405 at para 35). [ 7 ] The benefits require recipients to have earned at least $5,000 from approved income sources in 2019, 2020, or in the 12 months prior to the application date (CERB Act, s 2; CRB Act, s 3(1)(e)). [ 8 ] Recipients of the CRB and CERB may be subject to compliance reviews by the [NAME] (CRB Act, s 26; CERB Act, s 10). If a recipient is found to have been ineligible for the CRB or CERB in a given payment period, they are required to repay the amount received during that period to the [NAME] (CRB Act, s 28; CERB Act, s 12(1)). [ 9 ] If a CRB or CERB recipient disagrees with the findings of a final review of their eligibility, the recipient may apply for judicial review of the final decision. B. Facts [ 10 ] [NAME] applied for and received CRB for 27 two-week periods between September 27, 2020 and October 9, 2021. She also applied for and received seven instalments of CERB between March 15, 2020 and September 26, 2020. [ 11 ] At the time of applying and throughout the year prior, [NAME] describes her source of income as deriving from odd jobs, including gardening, janitorial services, and transportation. [ 12 ] In a letter dated February 3, 2023, the [NAME] notified [NAME] that her eligibility for the CRB and the CERB was under review and requested documents proving her income in the relevant timeframe. [ 13 ] [NAME] proceeded to have four reviews of her eligibility for the CRB and the CERB. All of these reviews determined that she had not met the income threshold required to receive the CRB or the CERB. [ 14 ] The only decision under review is contained in the letter dated April 17, 2025, and the accompanying [NAME] notes (the “[NAME]” ). [ 15 ] In advance of this decision, [NAME] had submitted bank statements for various months in 2019 and 2020. These bank statements originally showed the account holder as only [NAME]’s husband. [NAME] stated that this is a joint account and provided a letter from the bank stating that both she and her husband have been long-term clients of the bank. [ 16 ] [NAME] also included text messages, an invoice, cheques, and a signed statement from two friends who had paid [NAME] for gardening and cleaning services in 2019 and 2020. [ 17 ] With regard to [NAME]’s alleged transportation work, [NAME] stated that she was paid to drive her husband and run errands while her husband completed renovation work for [NAME], with whom her husband had a long-standing business relationship. She provided highlighted bank statements and a signed letter from [NAME], purporting to show which payments were to her, instead of her husband. She also provided invoices from herself and from her husband for work completed for [NAME] in 2019. [ 18 ] Prior to the [NAME] also had several phone calls with [NAME] to discuss her documents and potential issues in proving her income for 2019 and 2020. [ 19 ] Considering all of these documents and phone calls with [NAME], the [NAME] found sufficient documentation to support the income [NAME] had earned from her cleaning and gardening services. This totalled $2,967.50. Still, the [NAME] did not accept that [NAME] had earned sufficient income from her transportation services to reach the $5,000 requirement to qualify for the CRB and the CERB. [ 20 ] [NAME] notes show that the agent questioned [NAME]’s delay in mentioning or providing documents to support her transportation work for [NAME] until after she had submitted several documents and received a secondary review of her eligibility for the benefits on November 20, 2023. [NAME] acknowledged [NAME]’s explanation that she struggled to get information relating to her transportation work because she lost access to her email account, was in the midst of moving, and was not aware that this documentation was needed. Despite these explanations, [NAME] determined that this work should have been mentioned in the initial reviews because it purported to represent approximately half of the income necessary to be eligible for the CRB and the CERB. [ 21 ] [NAME] also found that the bank statements provided could not confirm the amount paid to [NAME] for her transportation services. [NAME]’s name was shown as an account holder in the newest bank statements and she had explained that her name was not on the account previously because she did not conduct her banking online, [NAME] noted that the contemporaneous bank statements show payments to a bank account with only her husband as the account holder. [NAME] further questioned the inconsistency in the timing and quantity of payments allegedly paid to [NAME] that were shown in the bank statements. [ 22 ] [NAME] further could not confirm the quantity paid to [NAME] through the signed letter from [NAME], dated March 15, 2025, because it was not contemporaneous. [ 23 ] Likewise, [NAME] analyzed the alleged proceeds from the sale of a smart car, which [NAME]’s husband had advertised online. [NAME] had explained that this car was to be sold in order to pay [NAME] and her husband for unpaid transportation work for [NAME]. This was specified in an invoice from [NAME]’s husband. The agent noted that the invoice provided by [NAME]’s husband shows that the proceeds from the car were to be paid to her husband and that the balance would be paid to [NAME], but it does not show the correct date or any details regarding the work completed. [ 24 ] Additionally, [NAME] could not determine the expenses or net self-employment income for [NAME]. [NAME] had explained that her husband claimed all of her expenses and that sometimes [NAME] would pay for the expenses along with the transportation work. This did not provide sufficient information for [NAME] to calculate [NAME]’s net self-employment income or determine whether it reached the required threshold to be eligible for the CRB or the CERB.

III. Preliminary Issues A. Admissibility of the Applicant’s New Documents [ 25 ] The Respondent challenges the admissibility of several documents [NAME] submitted in her Application Record because they were not before the decision maker and do not fit under one of the prescribed categories of admissibility outlined in Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v [NAME] (Access Copyright) , 2012 FCA 22 ( “ Access Copyright ” ) at paragraph 20. These documents include an email exchange between [NAME] and the Respondent about whether it was possible for the Applicant to conduct a cross-examination, a version of the Certified Tribunal Record ( “CTR” ) with annotations by the Applicant, and bank statements from the Applicant showing both her and her husband as joint account holders. [ 26 ] I agree in part with the Respondent. The bank statements and annotated CTR that [NAME] provided attempt to resolve the conflict that was before [NAME] when they made their decision. As such, these documents would allow this Court to intrude on the decision-maker’s role in coming to their determination. Because this Court’s role is not to re-weigh or re-assess the facts of the applicant’s eligibility, these documents cannot be accepted. ( Access Copyright at para 19; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 1185 at paras 22-23). [ 27 ] Although the correspondence between the Applicant and the Respondent does not interfere with the role of a reviewing court, I find that this correspondence is not relevant to [NAME]’s application. The correspondence relates to [NAME]’s request to conduct a cross-examination on the CTR, which was not available for the Applicant to conduct in these proceedings.

IV. Issues and Standards of Review [ 28 ] This application for judicial review raises the issues of whether the [NAME] is reasonable and was rendered in a manner that breached procedural fairness. [ 29 ] The applicable standard of review for the merits is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 ( “ [NAME] ” ). [ 30 ] The issue of procedural fairness is to be reviewed on the correctness standard ( [NAME] v [NAME] , 2014 SCC 24 at para 79; Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General ), 2018 FCA 69 at paras 37-56 ( “ Canadian Pacific Railway Company ” ); Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2020 FCA 196 at para 35). I find that this conclusion accords with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in [NAME] (at paras 16-17). [ 31 ] Reasonableness is a deferential, but robust, standard of review ( [NAME] at paras 12-13). The reviewing court must determine whether the decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, is transparent, intelligible, and justified ( [NAME] at para 15). 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 ( [NAME] at para 85). Whether a decision is reasonable depends on the relevant administrative setting, the record before the decision-maker, and the impact of the decision on those affected by its consequences ( [NAME] at paras 88-90, 94, 133-135). [ 32 ] For a decision to be unreasonable, the applicant must establish the decision contains flaws that are sufficiently central or significant ( [NAME] at para 100). Not all errors or concerns about a decision will warrant intervention. A reviewing court must refrain from reweighing evidence before the decision-maker, and it should not interfere with factual findings absent exceptional circumstances ( [NAME] at para 125). Flaws or shortcomings must be more than superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision, or a “minor misstep” ( [NAME] at para 100). [ 33 ] Correctness, by contrast, is a non-deferential standard of review. The central question for issues of procedural fairness is whether the procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances, including the factors enumerated in [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817 (at paras 21-28; see also Canadian Pacific Railway Company at para 54).

V. Analysis A. The [NAME] is Reasonable [ 34 ] [NAME] submits that she did not receive any reasons for her ineligibility. She further maintains that it was inconsistent for [NAME] to accept the signed letters from her friends as proof of her gardening and cleaning services but to refuse [NAME]’s letter regarding her transportation services. It is also [NAME]’s position that [NAME] should have accepted her amended income tax statements because they were previously accepted by the [NAME]. [ 35 ] The Respondent’s position is that [NAME]’s submissions amount to a request to reweigh the evidence before the decision maker.

Accordingly, the Respondent submits that [NAME] reviewed and considered all of [NAME]’s documents and provided reasons for finding insufficient support of income above $5,000 for 2019, 2020 or the 12 months before she applied for the CRB or the CERB. Further the Respondent submits that [NAME]’s amended tax returns were not submitted before the previous reviews of her eligibility for the CRB and the CERB and, in any case, are not conclusive proof of income. [ 36 ] Though I understand [NAME]’s submissions, I do not find that she has raised a reviewable error. [ 37 ] It is a well-established principle that the [NAME] notes are part of the decision ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 216 ( “ [NAME] ” ) at para 22). These notes show that [NAME] considered all of the Applicant’s documents and explanations. [ 38 ] In particular, [NAME]’s notes show close attention to each of the documents purporting to support her income from transportation services. [NAME] determined that the bank account statements showing [NAME]’s name as a joint account holder were not contemporaneous. Additionally, [NAME] specified that these bank statements lacked key information about her alleged income, including which portion of earnings was directed to [NAME], which transfers included expenses, or when [NAME]’s husband paid for the expenses related to the transportation services. [ 39 ] [NAME] further analyzed the online advertisement for a car allegedly given to [NAME] and her husband as payment for their transportation work for [NAME]. [NAME] did not accept this as proof of [NAME]’s work because there was no contemporaneous description of the work [NAME] completed for [NAME] related to this car sale. [ 40 ] [NAME] also found that the signed letter from [NAME] could not support her alleged income from transportation services because it was dated March 15, 2025. Unlike the letters from [NAME]’s friends, the letter from [NAME] was not accompanied by contemporaneous texts, emails or communication showing that [NAME] was paid for work completed for [NAME] in 2019 or 2020. Given these reasons, I find that the [NAME] had all the hallmarks of reasonableness regarding its finding that there was insufficient documentation to support the alleged income from [NAME]’s transportation services ( [NAME] at para 99). [ 41 ] [NAME]’s amended income tax assessments, I am sympathetic to the confusion that often accompanies the acceptance of an amended tax assessment by the [NAME] but a refusal to treat it as evidence in a review of an applicant’s eligibility for the CRB or the CERB. Nevertheless, I must emphasize that Canada’s tax system is based on self assessments.

Accordingly, there is no error in [NAME]’s determination that the amended tax assessment fails to provide conclusive proof of [NAME]’s income. Indeed, this Court has consistently determined that tax assessments are not conclusive evidence of eligibility for the CRB or the CERB ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1182 at para 43; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 139 at paras 35-36; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 381 at para 36; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 1605 at para 32). [ 42 ] Ultimately, I find that [NAME] reasonably concluded that there was insufficient documentation to support that [NAME] earned the requisite income to be eligible for the CRB or the CERB. B. The [NAME] was Conducted in a Procedurally Fair Manner [ 43 ] [NAME] submits that the procedural fairness of the [NAME] cannot be adequately assessed because the CTR lacks transcripts from her phone calls with [NAME] which took place prior to the [NAME]. In her view, the inclusion of [NAME]’s notes regarding these phone calls without the corresponding transcripts prevents her from showing the procedural issues with the decision. [ 44 ] The Respondent submits that there are no transcripts for the phone calls between [NAME] and [NAME], and that the CTR has provided the best evidence available regarding the process leading to the [NAME]. [ 45 ] In my view, while transcripts may well have been preferable had they been available, [NAME]’s notes are sufficient to conduct a review of the procedural fairness of the [NAME]. This reflects the above-noted principle that the [NAME] notes are included as part of the reasons given for the [NAME] ( [NAME] at para 22). [ 46 ] These notes show that [NAME] contacted [NAME] multiple times and communicated the issues with her documents. The notes specifically show that [NAME] informed [NAME] of the concerns with her alleged income from transportation services. Indeed, since the start of [NAME]’s review process, the [NAME] has spoken with her about her documents eight times and allowed her to submit new documents 14 times. Given the number of calls and the [NAME] notes showing that the agent discussed the relevant issues with [NAME], I find that [NAME] knew the case to be met when she submitted additional documents throughout the reviewing process. Despite many opportunities for [NAME] to submit new documents, these documents were insufficient to relieve [NAME] of their concerns. I find no procedural error in the [NAME]’s assessment ( Canadian Pacific Railway Company at para 56, cited in [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1066 at para 35).

VI. Conclusion [ 47 ] For the reasons above, I find that the [NAME] reflects the evidence before the decision maker along with the legal framework for eligibility for the CRB and the CERB ( [NAME] at para 90). The [NAME]’s process leading to this determination upheld the principles of fairness through its clear and consistent communication with [NAME].

Accordingly, I have found no reviewable error in the [NAME].

JUDGMENT in T-1681-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no award as to costs. “[NAME].” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1681-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA JUdgment IN WRITING

JUDGMENT and reasons: AHMED J. DATED: March 10, 2026 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY : [NAME] (On her own behalf) For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia For The Respondent