Federal Court Rejects CRB Eligibility Challenge

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260527 Docket: T-4378-25 Citation: 2026 FC 684 Toronto, Ontario, May 27, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] This is an application for judicial review of an October 21, 2025 second review decision [Decision] of an Officer [Officer] of the Canada Revenue Agency [[NAME]] that found the Applicant ineligible to receive the Canada Recovery Benefit [CRB] as administered under the Canada Recovery Benefits Act , SC 2020, c 12 [CRBA]. The Officer was unable to conclude that the Applicant experienced a 50% reduction in her average weekly income compared to the previous year due to COVID-19, found the Applicant was not present in Canada during certain weeks of the full benefit period, and that she had quit her jobs voluntarily. [ 2 ] The Applicant disagrees with the Decision. However, she has not established that it is unreasonable on the record that was before the Officer. Nor has she established that the Officer breached procedural fairness. For the reasons set out below, the application is dismissed.

I. Background [ 3 ] The Applicant, [APPELLANT] (previously known as [APPELLANT]), is a dual Canada-United States citizen. She lived and worked in Los Angeles from October 2019 until August 2020 when she returned to Canada and established a residence in Victoria, British Columbia. [ 4 ] The Applicant asserts that she worked multiple jobs in the hospitality and service industry during the COVID-19 pandemic, including: a) [NAME] ([COMPANY]); b) [NAME]; c) [NAME]; and d) the [COMPANY]. She also acknowledges that she worked in Los Angeles for approximately three months, from March 30, 2021 to June 28, 2021. [ 5 ] The Applicant applied for and received the CRB from September 27, 2020 to October 9, 2021 (periods 1 to 27) [Benefit Period]. [ 6 ] In a letter dated October 29, 2024, the [NAME] advised the Applicant their records showed that she may have been outside Canada for all or part of the time associated with the Benefit Period. The [NAME] requested additional documents from the Applicant to support her CRB eligibility. [ 7 ] On December 27, 2024, the Applicant submitted the following documents: a Record of Employment [ROE] for [NAME] covering the time period from March 11, 2021 to March 31, 2021, ROEs for [COMPANY] covering the time periods from August 2, 2021 to August 15, 2021 and August 26, 2020 to September 30, 2020, and a ROE for [COMPANY] covering the time period from November 10, 2021 to November 13, 2021. [ 8 ] On February 7, 2025, a [NAME] representative attempted to contact the Applicant by phone but was unable to reach her because the phone number given was not in service. [ 9 ] In a letter dated February 12, 2025, the first reviewing officer informed the Applicant that she was ineligible for the CRB because she was “not present in Canada during the period” and she “did not have a 50% reduction in her average weekly income compared to the previous year due to COVID-19” . [ 10 ] The Applicant followed up with the [NAME] by phone and then by letter to request an extension of time to submit additional documents to support a second review of her CRB eligibility. [ 11 ] On April 7, 2025, the Applicant provided the [NAME] with: [NAME] printouts for [NAME] for the pay periods March 1, 2021 to March 15, 2021, March 16, 2021 to March 31, 2021, May 16, 2021 to May 31, 2021 (vacation paid), July 16, 2021 to July 31, 2021, August 1, 2021 to August 15, 2021, and August 16, 2021 to August 31, 2021; [COMPANY] covering the time period from September 1, 2020 to October 7, 2020, November 25, 2020 to May 18, 2021, and May 20, 2021 to July 26, 2021; a Quick Statements printout; [NAME] printouts for [COMPANY] for the pay period from October 31, 2021 to November 13, 2021; [COMPANY] paystubs for the pay periods August 16, 2020 to August 31, 2020, September 1, 2020 to September 15, 2020, September 16, 2020 to September 30, 2020, and August 1, 2021 to August 15, 2021; a letter from the [NAME] stating that the Applicant was employed at the hotel from August 27, 2021 to September 15, 2022; and a letter from the Applicant explaining her inability to obtain documents relating to her employment with [NAME]. [ 12 ] On September 18 and 19, 2025, the Officer attempted to contact the Applicant by telephone at the numbers provided on file. The Officer called the first number two times and left voicemails on an unidentified voice mailbox asking the Applicant to call back concerning the second review request. The Applicant did not return the voice messages. The Officer also called a second number that appeared in the file, which did not have a voice mailbox available. [ 13 ] On October 21, 2025, the Officer issued the Decision advising the Applicant that she was not eligible for the CRB because she did not have a 50% reduction in her average weekly income compared to the previous year due to COVID-19, was not present in Canada for periods 14 to 20 of the Benefit Period, and quit her jobs voluntarily.

II. Preliminary Issue [ 14 ] Pursuant to Rule 303 of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR/98-106 [ Federal Courts Rules ], the Respondent asks that the style of cause be amended to identify the Attorney General of Canada [AGC] as the named Respondent. I am satisfied that the AGC is the correct responding party and the style of cause shall be amended accordingly.

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 15 ] The following issues are raised by this application: Did the Officer err when evaluating the evidence relating to the 50% reduction criteria? Did the Officer err in assessing whether the Applicant was present in Canada during periods 14 to 20 of the Benefit Period? Was there a breach of procedural fairness? [ 16 ] The parties submit, and I agree, the standard of review for assessing the merits of the Decision is reasonableness. 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” : Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration ) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ] at para 85. A decision will be reasonable when read as a whole and taking into account the administrative setting, it bears the hallmarks of justification, transparency, and intelligibility: [NAME] at para 99. [ 17 ] For procedural fairness, the Court must determine whether the procedure was fair having regard to the circumstances. The ultimate question is whether the applicant knew the case they had to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond: [COMPANY] v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2020 FCA 196 at para 35; Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras 54-55.

IV. Analysis A. Did the Officer err when evaluating the evidence relating to the 50% reduction criteria? [ 18 ] Pursuant to paragraph 3(1)(f) of the CRBA: 3 (1) A person is eligible for a Canada recovery benefit for any two-week period falling within the period beginning on September 27, 2020 and ending on October 23, 2021 if 3 (1) Est admissible à la [NAME], à l’égard de toute période de deux semaines comprise dans la période commençant le 27 septembre 2020 et se terminant le 23 octobre 2021, la [NAME] qui remplit les conditions suivantes : […] […] (f) during the two-week period, for reasons related to COVID-19, […] they had a reduction of at least 50% […] in their average weekly employment income […] for the two-week period relative to f) au cours de la période de deux semaines et pour des raisons liées à la COVID-19, [...] soit [NAME] a subi une réduction d’au moins cinquante pour cent de tous ses revenus hebdomadaires moyens d’emploi […] — pour la période de deux semaines par rapport à : (i) in the case of an application made under section 4 in respect of a two-week period beginning in 2020, their total average weekly employment income and self-employment income for 2019 or in the 12-month period preceding the day on which they make the application, and (i) tous ses revenus hebdomadaires moyens d’emploi ou de travail à son compte pour l’année 2019 ou au cours des douze mois précédant la date à laquelle [NAME] présente une demande, dans le cas où la demande présentée en vertu de l’article 4 vise une période de deux semaines qui débute en 2020, (ii) in the case of an application made under section 4 in respect of a two-week period beginning in 2021, their total average weekly employment income and self-employment income for 2019 or for 2020 or in the 12-month period preceding the day on which they make the application; (ii) tous ses revenus hebdomadaires moyens d’emploi ou de travail à son compte pour l’année 2019 ou 2020 ou au cours des douze mois précédant la date à laquelle [NAME] présente une demande, dans le cas où la demande présentée en vertu de l’article 4 vise une période de deux semaines qui débute en 2021; [ 19 ] The Officer indicates in their Case Notes that they were unable to calculate whether the Applicant had a 50% reduction in average weekly income compared to the previous year because there were gaps in the Applicant’s evidence that did not allow the Officer to calculate the Applicant’s average weekly income. On the Applicant’s income tax returns for 2019, 2020 and 2021, she reported “other employment income” at line 10400 in the amounts of $27,038, $26,477 and $10,090, respectively. However, the Applicant did not provide a breakdown of what this income was, how it was earned, and when it was earned during the 2020 and 2021 taxation years. Nor did the Officer have the ROE or paystubs relating to the Applicant’s earnings from working at [NAME]. [ 20 ] The Officer provides an “Action Plan” in the Case Notes indicating their intention to ask the Applicant about the breakdown of income during the Benefit Period and to identify the source of the “other income” declared in line 10400 for 2020 and 2021. However, the Officer was unable to reach the Applicant to ask their questions. [ 21 ] The eligibility criteria for the CRB required the Officer to determine the Applicant’s average weekly income during the previous year to make an eligibility calculation. As the Officer was unable to determine the Applicant’s average weekly income, they were unable to calculate whether the Applicant met the 50% reduction requirement for the CRB pursuant to paragraph 3(1)(f) of the CRBA. [ 22 ] The Applicant asserts that the Decision misstates her employment history and misinterprets her tax filings. In her written materials, the Applicant argues that the Officer incorrectly states she only worked at [NAME] at the “end of 2020” , even though her April 7, 2025 letter to the [NAME] stated that she worked at [NAME] from “late 2020 into early 2021” . [ 23 ] The Case Notes acknowledge the Applicant’s assertion of working at [NAME] from late 2020 into 2021 but note that the only T4 for [NAME] was for 2021. The Applicant admits in her letter to the [NAME] that she was unsuccessful in obtaining an ROE or pay stubs for her work at [NAME] in 2020. She therefore could not provide the [NAME] with direct evidence to support her assertion that she worked at [NAME] in late 2020. The Officer did not misstate the Applicant’s experience at [NAME] but rather made a finding consistent with the evidence. I do not consider this to be unreasonable. [ 24 ] The Applicant argues that the Officer mischaracterized her employment history, stating that she quit certain jobs when she was simply laid off from [NAME] because of COVID-19 restrictions and stopped working at [NAME] because it was a seasonal job. In each case, the ROE identifies the reason for issuing the ROE as being that the Applicant “quit” . Based on this evidence, it was reasonable for the Officer to conclude that the Applicant stopped working voluntarily. [ 25 ] The Applicant has not identified a reviewable error. B. Did the Officer err in assessing whether the Applicant was present in Canada during periods 14 to 20 of the Benefit Period? [ 26 ] Paragraph 3(1)(c) of the CRBA requires a benefits recipient to be both resident and present in Canada during the period of the benefits. [ 27 ] The Canadian Border Services Agency provided information showing the Applicant left Canada on March 30, 2021 and did not return to Canada until June 28, 2021. [ 28 ] The Applicant acknowledges she worked in the United States for the three-month period between March 30, 2021 and June 28, 2021. However, she argues that this three-month period of work in the United States was involuntary, temporary, and fully declared in her tax filings. She asserts that at all relevant times she maintained a Canadian residence, Canadian bank accounts, and ongoing ties to British Columbia and that this should be sufficient to retain her CRB. She asserts that she did not quit her job at [NAME] but was instead placed on leave and received no shifts after British Columbia enacted new COVID-19 restrictions in March 2021. The Applicant contends that this was the reason she had to take temporary work in the United States. [ 29 ] The Applicant submits that she acted in good faith and relied on [NAME] to file her tax returns in both Canada and the United States. She asserts that the Officer’s failure to consider this professional advice and evidence is inconsistent with [NAME] ’s reasonableness principles. I cannot agree. [ 30 ] The requirement under paragraph 3(1)(c) of the CRBA is not discretionary. Nor is it dependent on the reasons why the Applicant returned to the United States. It is not enough for the Applicant to maintain a residence in Canada. This paragraph also includes a second requirement that she be “present” in Canada during the benefit period. If she was not “present” in Canada during the benefit period, she does not satisfy paragraph 3(1)(c). [ 31 ] The Officer reasonably found that the Applicant did not comply with paragraph 3(1)(c) of the CRBA for periods 14 to 20 of the Benefit Period. C. Was there a breach of procedural fairness? [ 32 ] The Applicant asserts that the [NAME] failed to provide proper notice of the second review. She states that the [NAME] only attempted to contact her once by phone, from a number “flagged as suspicious” and failed to provide any email notice or written communication advising her that a response was required. This deprived her of a meaningful opportunity to participate in the second review, contrary to [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC). [ 33 ] The Respondent’s evidence and the information in the Certified Tribunal Record contradicts the Applicant’s assertion that she only received one phone call. The Officer’s Case Notes indicate that they phoned the Applicant four times, over two days, at two different phone numbers. On two of the call attempts, the Officer left a voicemail. The Applicant has not provided any concrete evidence to counter the record of events contained in the Case Notes. [ 34 ] Further, even with this argument, the Applicant acknowledged receiving one voicemail message. The Case Notes indicate that in their voicemail message, the Officer indicated that the call was related to the Applicant’s second review: Call details: I was unable to reach benefit recipient ([NAME]). I left a voicemail on a unidentified voice mailbox for them to contact me concerning their second review request. [NAME] needs to call me back before the deadline date (October 2, 2025 ), otherwise I’ll be basing the final review determination on what we have on file. My contact number is [PHONE]. I’m available Monday to Friday from 08:00 AM to 4:00 PM EDT. [ 35 ] While the Applicant states that she deleted the voicemail without listening to it, it is unlikely, in my view, that she did not at least hear that the message was related to a second review. Knowing that she was under a second level review with the [NAME] for the CRB received, it was reasonable to expect the Applicant would have at least tried to call the [NAME] to verify the legitimacy of the call before ignoring it outright. [ 36 ] The February 12, 2025 first level decision made clear that it was important for any second level review that the Applicant provide the [NAME] with current contact information, including a current phone number. I agree with the Respondent, this indicated that the Applicant might be contacted by phone regarding the review. [ 37 ] As set out in [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1571 [ [NAME] ] at para 17, the procedural fairness obligations of [NAME] officers are on the low end of the spectrum. There is no statutory obligation on an officer to issue a written notice where phone communication is appropriate: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 431 [ [NAME] ] at para 35. Nor is there any obligation to issue a written notice prior to rendering a decision: [NAME] at para 17. [ 38 ] Procedural fairness in this context requires a decision-maker to provide an applicant with a reasonable opportunity to respond and to know what is required of them: [NAME] at para 35; [NAME] at para 17. Here, the Officer provided correspondence outlining the types of documents that were of interest and made four attempts to reach the Applicant by phone on September 18 and 19, 2025 before the Decision was issued on October 21, 2025. This provided the Applicant with over a month to phone the [NAME] to confirm that the call received was legitimate or to participate in the process in any other manner. [ 39 ] An applicant cannot claim they did not have an opportunity to participate, where they failed to participate in the process. As stated in [NAME] at paragraph 36, with reference to [NAME] : [...] once the [NAME] attempted calls and left voicemails explaining the required information, the onus shifted to the Applicant to respond or seek clarification. There, the applicant’s failure to engage ‒ by ignoring calls and failing to return them ‒ meant that the applicant could not later claim a lack of opportunity to participate in the process. [ 40 ] Similarly here, the Applicant’s failure to engage with the [NAME]’s attempts to reach her cannot form the basis for an allegation of procedural unfairness. [ 41 ] For all these reasons, the application is dismissed. [ 42 ] In view of the nature of the proceeding and the fact that the Applicant was self‑represented, there shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT IN T-4378-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: The style of cause is amended, with immediate effect, to name the Attorney General of Canada as the proper Respondent. The application is dismissed. There shall be no award of costs. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-4378-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: May 21, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: May 27, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] For The Applicant [APPELLANT]. [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Halifax, Nova Scotia For The Respondent