Federal Court Rejects CRB Eligibility Appeal

Date: 20260519 Docket: T-564-24 Citation: 2026 FC 635 Ottawa, Ontario, May 19, 2026 PRESENT: Mr. Justice Pentney BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME], worked as a realtor. When his business declined as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, he applied for and received the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) for the periods between September 27, 2020, to October 9, 2021. [ 2 ] The Canada Revenue Agency ([NAME]) later decided to validate the Applicant’s eligibility for the benefit. On first review, the Applicant was found ineligible because he did not establish that he had earned at least $5,000 of net self-employment income in 2019, 2020 or in the 12 months before the date of his first application. [ 3 ] The Applicant then applied for a [NAME] review of his eligibility, and he was again found to be ineligible because he did not earn at least $5,000 of net self-employment income in 2019, 2020 or in the 12 months before the date of his application, and did not have a 50% reduction in his average weekly income compared to the previous year [the Decision]. [ 4 ] The Applicant argues that the Decision is unreasonable, largely because he says the [NAME] misunderstood the difference between his net income as declared on his income tax documents, and his actual net income which he says should be the basis for determining his eligibility for the CRB. He claims that he provided information showing he was eligible for the benefit, but this was not taken into account by the [NAME]. [ 5 ] For the reasons set out below, I am not persuaded that the Applicant has demonstrated that the decision is unreasonable. The Decision is based on the application of the law to the evidence he put forward and the Officer’s reasoning is clearly explained. There is no basis to overturn this decision and the application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed.

I. Background A. The legislative framework [ 6 ] The Canada Recovery Benefits Act , S.C. 2020, c. 12, s. 2 (the CRB Act ) governs eligibility for the CRB. Individuals who had stopped working or had their income reduced due to COVID-19 could apply for the CRB for any two-week period between September 27, 2020, and October 23, 2021. [ 7 ] Subsection 3(1) of the CRB Act sets out the eligibility criteria for the benefit. The criteria are non-discretionary. These criteria include a requirement that, for each two-week period for which the benefit is claimed, the applicant had at least a 50% reduction in their income as compared to their total average weekly income for 2019 or the 12 month period preceding the day they made the application (for applications made in 2020) or for 2019, 2020, or the 12-month period before the day on which they made the application (for applications made in 2021). [ 8 ] Additionally, in order to be eligible for the CRB, the applicant had to have at least $5,000 in total income in 2019 or the 12 month period preceding the day they made the application (for applications for periods in 2020), or in 2019, 2020, or the 12 months before the date of the application (for applications for periods in 2021). [ 9 ] The CRB Act defines self-employment income as revenue from self-employment less the expenses incurred to earn that revenue (subsection 3(2)). B. The facts of this case [ 10 ] The Applicant applied for and received the CRB for 27 periods between September 27, 2020, and October 9, 2021. [ 11 ] The [NAME] decided to validate the Applicant’s CRB eligibility. The Applicant was asked to provide supporting documentation to prove that he had earned at least $5,000 in 2019, 2020 or in the 12 months before the date he applied for the CRB. [ 12 ] The Applicant provided a letter to the [NAME] advising that he had one commission worth more than $20,000 in February of 2020. He also provided a real estate listing showing a house sold and on which he is listed as the realtor. [ 13 ] The [NAME] telephoned the Applicant in March 2023 to explain that the documentation was not sufficient. They requested copies of bank statements and invoices to support the Applicant’s claimed business income. [ 14 ] The Applicant provided several documents in response to the [NAME]’s request, including the contract engaging him as a realtor for the sale mentioned above, various documents from the sale, a copy of his bank statement showing the deposit of the commission, and documents from his company indicating the commission paid. [ 15 ] Following a review of this information, the [NAME] sent the Applicant a refusal letter indicating he was not eligible for the CRB because he did not earn at least $5,000 in 2019, 2020 or the 12 months before the date of his first application. [ 16 ] The Applicant requested a [NAME] review of the decision. [NAME] spoke with the Applicant by telephone in February 2024. The Applicant then sent a position letter confirming, among other things, that he had no income in 2019. [ 17 ] On [NAME] review, the [NAME] again determined that the Applicant was not eligible for the CRB. [NAME] noted that the Applicant had not reported any income for 2019, and in 2020 had reported gross commission of $21,650 and net commission of $18. They noted that there did not appear to be a 50% reduction compared to the previous year and that the Applicant had not proven he met the $5,000 net income criteria. [ 18 ] [NAME]’s notes, which form part of the decision, indicate that the Applicant attempted to explain that he put his 2019 expenses on his 2020 tax return, and that is why his net earnings were only $18.00 in 2020. He said that he wanted to adjust his taxes to be eligible for the CRB. The Applicant also told [NAME] that he sold a [NAME] townhouse in 2020 and earned $5,450, and worked as an Uber driver for a couple of months. [NAME] pointed out that this income was not reported. Following this conversation, [NAME] gave the Applicant the opportunity to submit additional documents. The Applicant then provided a letter restating how his expenses should have been allocated between 2019 and 2020. He had not taken steps to have his tax returns reassessed. [NAME] found that the Applicant had not submitted sufficient information to confirm his eligibility and therefore found him to be ineligible for the CRB. [ 19 ] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the [NAME] decision.

II. Issues and Standard of Review [ 20 ] The only issue is whether the Decision is unreasonable. [ 21 ] This question is assessed under the framework for reasonableness review set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ], and confirmed in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21 [ [NAME] ]. [ 22 ] In summary, under the [NAME] framework, a reviewing court is to review the reasons given by the administrative decision-maker and determine whether the decision is based on an internally coherent chain of reasoning and is justified in light of the relevant legal and factual constraints ( [NAME] at para 85; [NAME] at para 8). The onus is on the Applicant to demonstrate that “any shortcomings or flaws … are sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable” ( [NAME] at para 100). Absent exceptional circumstances, reviewing courts must not interfere with the decision-maker’s factual findings and cannot reweigh and reassess evidence considered by the decision-maker ( [NAME] at para 125).

III. Analysis [ 23 ] The Applicant submits that he provided evidence of the income he earned from a real estate deal that closed in 2020, in the form of a copy of a commission cheque he obtained from his bank. Based on this, he understood that [NAME] had found him to be eligible for the CRB. But when the [NAME] reviewed his claim, they found him to be ineligible. The Applicant says this is wrong because [NAME] failed to take into account that his net income as declared on his income tax return does not reflect his actual net income. [ 24 ] The Applicant asserts that he had tried to minimize the income tax he owed by allocating business expenses from 2019 to his 2020 tax return. His 2019 income tax return shows a net income of $1.00, while his 2020 return shows net self-employment income of $18, and his 2021 return shows a net self-employment income of $787. [NAME] relied on this information, as well as the other information in the file, to assess the Applicant’s eligibility. The Applicant says that [NAME] should not have relied on his income tax documents because they do not show his actual net income for 2019 and 2020. [ 25 ] The crux of the Applicant’s argument is that he can adjust his net income for different purposes, and the [NAME] should have relied on the documentation he submitted to find him eligible for the CRB. He says his income tax returns do not paint an accurate picture of his actual net self-employment income. While the Applicant acknowledges that [NAME] did not overlook any of the documents he submitted, he claims that the information about his actual net income was misunderstood and therefore the decision is unreasonable. [ 26 ] I am not persuaded that there is any reviewable error in the Decision. The Applicant’s letter dated January 19, 2024, declared that he had no income in 2019. The documents he submitted, and the [NAME] print-out of his income tax records, shows that his income actually increased from 2019 to 2020, and then again from 2020 to 2021. The Applicant did not apply to adjust his tax returns to correct any errors, nor did he provide evidence of his actual expenses in 2019 or 2020. [NAME] examined the documents in the record and the [NAME]’s own records regarding the Applicant’s declared income and concluded that he was not eligible for the benefit. [ 27 ] I can find no basis to disturb this conclusion. The Decision reflects a careful review of the information provided by the Applicant, and it applied the legal framework described above. The Decision is reasonable. [ 28 ] For the reasons set out above, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. [ 29 ] The Respondent asked for lump sum costs in the amount of $500. Considering the circumstances of this case, I find that this is an appropriate costs award. [ 30 ] One final procedural note: the style of cause is amended, on consent, to name the Attorney General of Canada as Respondent, with immediate effect.

JUDGMENT in T-564-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. The Applicant is ordered to pay the Respondent costs in the amount of $500. The style of cause is amended to name the Attorney General of Canada as Respondent. "William F. Pentney" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: T-564-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: BY VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: January 21, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: pentney j. DATED: may 19, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] ON HIS [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Halifax, Nova Scotia For The Respondent