Federal Court Rejects CRB Eligibility Challenge

Date: 20260217 Docket: T-136-24 Citation: 2026 FC 219 Ottawa, Ontario, February 17, 2026 PRESENT: Mr. Justice Pentney BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS [ 1 ] Mr. [NAME], the Applicant in this matter, received the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) for the period between September 27, 2020, and January 2, 2021. He said he had lost his job due to COVID-19 restrictions and that he met the eligibility requirements for this benefit. [ 2 ] An Officer of the Canada Revenue Agency ([NAME]) reviewed the Applicant’s file and found that he was not eligible because he had not established that he earned at least $5,000 in employment income in 2019 or 2020, or in the 12 months before the date of his first application. As explained more fully below, this was the second time his claim had been reviewed, because [NAME] sought judicial review of a previous denial, which was settled on the agreement that his claim would be reviewed by another Officer. [ 3 ] [NAME] seeks to overturn the decision finding him ineligible for the CRB. His main argument is essentially that [NAME] cannot have it both ways: it cannot tax him on income that it now says he did not earn. [NAME] says the [NAME] accepted his employment income when it reassessed his 2019 and 2020 taxation years, and he has paid income tax on the amounts shown for those years. Based on that, he says it is unreasonable and unfair for [NAME] to now question his income when it comes to assessing his eligibility for the CRB. According to [NAME], either [NAME] should accept his income and not seek to recover the amounts he received in CRB benefits, or it should pay him back the taxes he has paid on the income he declared for 2019 and 2020. He says it is a simple matter of fairness and consistency. [ 4 ] [NAME] says that if [NAME] had doubts about his income, they could have audited him or his employer, but they did not do that. If [NAME] wanted his bank records, they had the power to obtain them and he says he asked them to do that, but once again they failed to do so. Based on all of that, [NAME] says the decision is unreasonable and he was treated unfairly. [ 5 ] The Respondent argues that the Officer’s decision is reasonable, based on [NAME]’s inability to provide information to establish that he earned the income he had declared. Based on the gaps in the information he was able to provide and the discrepancies in the various documents he submitted, the Respondent submits that the Officer had good reason to find that the evidence did not substantiate [NAME]’s eligibility for the CRB benefit. [ 6 ] For the reasons that follow, I find that the decision is reasonable and [NAME] was not denied procedural fairness. The application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed.

I. Background [ 7 ] [NAME] said he was employed full-time at the [NAME], where he earned $26,850 in 2019. He claimed that he worked at the [NAME] from January to March 2020, earning $18.65 an hour, but he was laid off due to COVID-19 restrictions. He then applied for the CRB because he met the criteria: he had earned more than $5,000 in 2019; he had lost his employment income when the [NAME] was forced to close because of COVID-19 restrictions; and he was unable to find other work. [NAME] received the CRB for the periods between September 27, 2020, and January 2, 2021. [ 8 ] The [NAME] decided to validate [NAME]’s eligibility for the CRB (First Review). He submitted the following documents in support of his claim: a letter from [NAME] stating that the Applicant was working there between January and March 2020 for an hourly wage of $18.65; and a [NAME] for 2020 showing earnings of $7,567.12. On June 7, 2021, the [NAME] sent a letter to the Applicant informing him that he was not eligible for the CRB during the period claimed because he had not earned at least $5,000 in income in 2019 and that he had not had a 50% reduction in his income. [ 9 ] In February and March 2023, the Applicant provided further submissions to the [NAME], including: a [NAME] for 2020 showing $7,500 in income; handwritten notes explaining that he filed his 2019 returns incorrectly; and a [NAME] for 2019 indicating earnings of $28,650. Based on this new information, the [NAME] conducted a Second Review. Following this review, the [NAME] once again found [NAME] ineligible for the CRB he had received. The decision letter dated August 2023 denied the Applicant’s claim for the same reasons as above (he had not earned at least $5,000 in income in 2019 and he had not had a 50% reduction in his income) and added that he was able to work but did not look for a job during the CRB period. [ 10 ] The Applicant commenced an application for judicial review of the Second Review decision in September 2023. The application was discontinued in October 2023 and [NAME] agreed that the Applicant’s eligibility would be reassessed by a different officer. The Applicant submitted the following documentation in advance of the decision by a new officer (Further Second Review or the Decision): Screenshots of his casting workbook showing audition activity during the benefit period; Emails and screenshots showing the auditions for acting jobs that the Applicant applied for in 2019 and 2020; His Record of Employment (ROE) at [NAME]. [ 11 ] The results of the Further Second Review were communicated to [NAME] in January 2024. The Officer again found [NAME] ineligible for the CRB during the period claimed. The case notes from [NAME]’s system provide the detailed reasons, which are discussed in greater detail below. In summary, the Officer did not accept his claimed earnings in 2019 and 2020 due to a combination of factors, including the lack of supporting evidence, discrepancies in his submissions, and inconsistencies between his ROE, his previous T4s and tax returns. [ 12 ] [NAME] seeks judicial review of the Further Second Review decision.

II. Issues and Standard of Review [ 13 ] [NAME] raises two issues: (A) is the Further Second Review decision unreasonable? and (B) was he denied procedural fairness? [ 14 ] The first issue 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] ]. [ 15 ] 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). [ 16 ] Questions of procedural fairness require an approach resembling the correctness standard of review that inquires “whether the procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances” ( [COMPANY] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at para 54 [ [NAME] ] ; [COMPANY] v [COMPANY] , 2021 FCA 26 at para 107). As noted in [NAME] at paragraph 56, “the ultimate question remains whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond” , and at paragraph 54, “[a] reviewing court... asks, with a sharp focus on the nature of the substantive rights involved and the consequences for an individual, whether a fair and just process was followed” .

III. Analysis A. The Further Second Review Decision is reasonable [ 17 ] [NAME] claims that the Decision is unreasonable because he provided evidence of his income for 2019 and 2020, and it was clear that his job at the [NAME] ended because of restrictions imposed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. He points to his [NAME] from 2019 as well as his ROE which prove that he earned $26,580 in 2019. [NAME] takes the position that his [NAME] and the [NAME] should be taken as irrefutable evidence of his income, because that is the amount on which he paid taxes. He argues that it is inherently contradictory for the [NAME] to find that he did not meet the $5,000 income threshold for CRB purposes, while simultaneously accepting his documents for tax purposes. In his view, either the CRB denial should be overturned, or [NAME] should refund the taxes he paid on the amount shown on his [NAME]. [ 18 ] In addition, [NAME] submits that several of the discrepancies noted by the Officer were minimal; for example, he asserts that the differences between the [NAME] for his 2019 income and the [NAME] provided by his employer amounted to $67.00. He says the same amount was the only difference between his two [NAME] for 2020. According to [NAME], the [NAME] audit policy is to ignore amounts of less than $100, and he submits that this policy should have been applied in his case. [ 19 ] The Respondent advances two main arguments. First, it was reasonable for the Officer to conclude that [NAME]’s contradictory and inconsistent [NAME] statements and discrepancies with his ROE, together with his explanations for the differences, were insufficient to establish his income for the relevant period. The Respondent points out that [NAME] did not provide any other documentation, such as cheques, paystubs, bank statements or timesheets to support his claimed income from the [NAME]. They further note that a tax assessment is not conclusive proof of income earned: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1534 at para 30 [ [NAME] ]. [ 20 ] The Respondent also asserts that merely providing the Officer with documentation is not sufficient to justify a finding of eligibility. It is reasonable for an Officer to deny a claim in the absence of documentation explaining discrepancies and contradictions: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) 2023 FC 1665, at paras 15-16 [ [NAME] ]. [ 21 ] I am not persuaded that the decision is unreasonable. The Officer clearly considered all of the information [NAME] provided but found that it was insufficient to establish the income he claimed for 2019 and 2020. The Officer explained the reasons for finding [NAME] ineligible for the CRB and the decision is transparent, intelligible and justified. That is all that [NAME] requires of a decision-maker ( [NAME] at para 15). [ 22 ] The reasonableness of the decision must be assessed by examining whether it is consistent with the legal framework, and whether it demonstrates that the key information in the record was considered. Reasonableness is also concerned with the nature of the explanation provided for the result. In this case, a large part of the problem for [NAME] was the changing and inconsistent nature of the income information he provided for the years 2019 and 2020. [ 23 ] The following describes the differences in the income [NAME] reported for 2019. The Officer’s notes indicate that between January 2021 and February 2023, [NAME] submitted three requests for adjustments of his 2019 tax return. He also provided an explanation for the multiple reassessment requests for his 2019 return, claiming that he was confused about what he could claim as expenses, and thought that since he worked at a [NAME] owned by his parents he should claim as self-employed. He stated that he was estimating his income since he did not have [NAME] from the [NAME]. [ 24 ] [NAME]’s 2019 income tax return was first assessed on March 26, 2020. He reported Gross Professional Income of $28,880 and was assessed as having a loss of $60,120 in Net Self Employment Professional Income. As a result of [NAME]’s request for reassessment, his 2019 tax return was assessed again on January 29, 2021, showing his Net Self Employment Income and Total Income as $21,880. On August 12, 2021, a further reassessment showed [NAME]’s Net Self Employment Income and Total Income as $28,880. On the February 17, 2023, reassessment, [NAME] was assessed as having [NAME] earnings of $26,850 and Net Self Employment Income of $28,880 for a Total Income of $55,730. On March 23, 2023, [NAME] provided [NAME] with a [NAME] showing earnings of $26,850. [ 25 ] The Officer asked [NAME] about the discrepancies in his 2019 income tax return and reassessments. The Agent’s notes summarize his explanations as follows [in the Review Agent’s notes, [NAME] is referred to as the [NAME], or taxpayer]: When this Review Agent questioned the [NAME] regarding the inconsistencies declared on his 2019 Income Tax return and on his subsequent requests for readjustment, he stated he incorrectly completed his income tax return. He said he thought because he was employed by his family, he thought he would be claiming to be self-employed. He stated he found out after the fact that being employed by his family does not mean that he’s self employed. The [NAME] stated he claimed a net loss of income because he was unsure if he could claim all of his personal expenses including his rent, so he claimed them. He stated the amount of self-employment income he claimed was different then the amount of his [NAME] because he did not have the benefit of a [NAME], and he was trying his best to estimate his income when he completed his income tax. The [NAME] stated he realized he earned $26,850.00 in his employment income upon receipt of his [NAME] from his employer (…) He stated upon receipt of the [NAME] for the 2019 income tax year, he subsequently requested a reassessment with the up to date accurate information. [ 26 ] After he received the negative Second Further Review decision, [NAME] submitted a fourth request for reassessment, which showed [NAME] earnings of $26,850, which was also his Total Income for that year. As this was not before the Officer, it is inadmissible on judicial review: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v [NAME] (Access Copyright) , 2012 FCA 22 at para 19 [ Access Copyright ]; [NAME] at para 32. [ 27 ] Turning to the 2020 income tax return, the initial assessment on March 22, 2021, showed [NAME] as having [NAME] earnings of $12,760 and Other Income (CERB payments) of $20,000 for a Total Income of $32,760. His 2020 return was subsequently reassessed four times. The first one was completed on August 12, 2021, and showed no change from the original assessment. The second reassessment on April 7, 2022, showed Other Income in the amount of $32,760, which was also his Total Income. The third reassessment completed on February 17, 2023, showed the same amounts as the second one. A fourth reassessment, also on February 17, 2023, shows Other Income of $25,500 for a Total Income of $25,500. [ 28 ] [NAME] submitted two [NAME] for 2020: the first provided on January 29, 2021, showed earnings in the amount of $7,567.12; the second [NAME] provided on March 23, 2023, showed earnings of $7,500. The Officer’s notes discuss the 2020 income information and [NAME]’s attempts to explain the discrepancies: On two separate occasions, the [NAME] could not explain the discrepancies in the two [NAME]’s that he submitted for the 2020 Tax Year, and he could not explain why $12,760.00 in [NAME] earnings was reported on the initial assessment for 2020 noting the two [NAME]’s were in the amount of $7,567.12 and $7,500.00. The [Applicant] stated he doesn’t know, has no clue and is he himself confused at how it occurred. The [NAME] stated he doesn’t know why he entered a figure of $12,760 and stated that perhaps he added either the amount of the CERB or the CRB to his [NAME] earnings. The [NAME] stated that income tax returns is (sic) not something that he’s very good at and that mathematics is not his strong point either. The [NAME] stated he has no one to help him with his return and he does not have the funds to pay for someone to complete them on his behalf, so he does the best that he can. The [NAME] stated he was not aware of the differences on the [NAME]’s he submitted. He stated perhaps the first one he submitted was incorrect and a correction was made that prompted the creation of a second [NAME]. He stated those were the documents he was given. [ 29 ] [NAME]’s 2020 Tax Return was reassessed again on April 15, 2024, and thus after the date of the decision under review here. He reported [NAME] earnings in the amount of $7,500 and Other Income in the amount of $20,000 for a Total Income of $27,500. As this was not before the Officer, this information is not admissible on judicial review. [ 30 ] The notes demonstrate that the Officer had several questions for [NAME] regarding his employment history at the [NAME] between 2019 and 2021, the discrepancies in the [NAME] he submitted, how he was paid by the [NAME] (direct deposit, cheque, e-transfer etc.), and whether he had been looking for other employment after his job at the [NAME] had ceased. As the notes show, [NAME]’s answers did not resolve the Officer’s questions. Among other things, he was not aware of the discrepancies in the various [NAME] he had provided. He said he was paid in cash and by cheque and he had deposited some of the money into his personal bank account but did not provide any banking statements or other records to confirm this. The notes record that “The [NAME] does not have any pay stubs, pay slips, was not paid by direct deposit, does not have any bank records, copy of work schedule or time cards to confirm his earnings in 2019 or in 2020.” [ 31 ] [NAME] provided a Record of Employment from [NAME], signed by his mother, but he could not explain the discrepancies between the letter she had authored about the time he worked and his hourly wage and the information on these matters shown in the Record of Employment. He claimed that not all of his earnings from 2019 appeared in the Record of Employment. [NAME] had previously indicated he would obtain bank records but later stated that he did not have access to them (a point discussed below). [ 32 ] Based on the discrepancies in the income reported and the absence of any other documentation to back up [NAME]’s claims about his employment at the [NAME], the Officer made the following findings regarding the 2019 and 2020 employment income: 2019 Employment Income: This Review Agent is not accepting that the [NAME] earned $26,850.00 in employment income in 2019 working as a Bar Manager at [NAME], (which is a family owned business) due to the discrepancies in the [NAME]'s initial income tax return and subsequent requests for adjustments (reassessments). …. 2020 Employment Income: This Review Agent is not accepting that the [NAME] earned $7,567.12 or $7,500.00 in employment income from January 2, 2020, to March 16, 2020, working as a Bar Manager at [NAME], (which is a family owned business) due to the discrepancies in the [NAME]'s initial income tax return and subsequent requests for adjustments (reassessments). [ 33 ] The Officer discussed the various discrepancies in the income information provided for 2019 and 2020, and added further details regarding other irregularities in [NAME]’s documents, including the following: An additional discrepancy of note regarding the [NAME]'s is that the "Payer" listed on the [NAME]'s processed by the Canada Revenue Agency for 2019 and 2020 is simply listed as [NAME]. There is no indication on the [NAME]'s that [NAME], or any other business name, or any other business number was the "Payer" on theT4's for 2019 and 2020. …. (The [NAME]) had his employer complete a new ROE (mother is listed as the contact person and his father is listed as the issuer of the ROE) on November 16, 2023, which has several discrepancies in comparison to a letter his mother authored on January 26, 2021 regarding his employment and earnings. As well, the [NAME] claims the employer is no longer in business and cannot provide him with a copy of the original ROE that was completed at the time the [NAME] applied for [NAME], but they are able to provide him with a new ROE. The [NAME] submitted a letter from his employer (authored by the [NAME]'s mother, [NAME]) dated January 26, 2021, indicating he was a member of the staff beginning on January 2, 2020, was employed as the Bar Manager, earned $18.65 per hour, his employment was placed on hold until Covid-19 restrictions are lifted, and worked full time from January 2, 2020, to March 16, 2020. This information is contradicted by the information outlined on the ROE completed by [NAME] on November 16, 2023, indicating the [NAME] was employed from January 3, 2019, to March 14, 2020, his final pay period date was March 15, 2020, the [NAME] was remunerated semi-monthly in 2019 and in 2020, and the total insurable earnings indicated on the ROE do not match the sum of the [NAME]'s for the 2019 tax year and the 2020 tax year. The [NAME] was unable to explain the discrepancies with regard to earning an hourly rate and his time worked as indicated in the letter authored by his mother. He claims he worked full time as the Bar Manager, (a minimum of 40 hours per week, often more) and his salary was not based on an hourly rate. The insurable earnings reported on the Record of Employment completed by [NAME] (the [NAME]'s mother) are $16,450.00. The insurable earnings don't match what was reported for employment income in 2019 and 2020, because the [NAME] claims the insurable earnings were not reported in full. The [NAME] claims he was paid a semi-monthly salary of $1,118.75. The [NAME] claims the product of 24 semi-monthly payments of $1,118.75 is $26,850.00, the amount on his [NAME] for the 2019 taxation year. The [NAME] stated in 2020 he was paid a semi-monthly salary of $1,500.00. The [NAME] stated the product of 5 semi-monthly payments of $1,500.00 (2 semi-monthly payments in January 2020, 2 semi-monthly payments in February 2020 and 1 semi-monthly payment in March 2020 is $7,500.00, which is the amount that appears of one of the two [NAME]'s for the 2020 taxation year (submitted by the [NAME]). [ 34 ] The Officer’s notes include other detailed discussions of the various documents in the record and note the discrepancies in the income reported for 2019 and 2020; I will not review each of these here. The quotations set out above are sufficient to indicate why the Officer had questions, and to demonstrate why the Officer was not persuaded by [NAME]’s explanations. [ 35 ] [NAME] did not challenge many of these findings, but during oral submissions he added some explanations of the discrepancies. First, he says that his bank accounts were frozen and thus he could not obtain copies of his banking records. He says that [NAME] has legal tools to enable them to access bank information and argues that he should not be punished because [NAME] refused to take the steps necessary to obtain the records. Second, he says that [NAME] should have ignored many of the discrepancies in the information he provided because the differences were so small. [NAME] argues that the [NAME] policy is to disregard discrepancies of less than $100, but they did not do that in his case. [ 36 ] Finally, [NAME] argues that the [NAME] cannot accept the income tax he paid based on the Income Tax Returns and reassessments but then deny that he earned that income when assessing his entitlement to the CRB. He submits that if the decision under review is not quashed, then [NAME] should reassess his tax returns and refund him the taxes he has already paid. He points to the various reassessments of his tax returns done by [NAME] as irrefutable proof of the income he earned, and argues it is unreasonable for the [NAME] to not rely on that information when assessing his eligibility for the CRB. [ 37 ] While I can understand [NAME]’s perspective to some extent, I am not persuaded by his arguments. The Officer was faced with many discrepancies in the documents filed by [NAME] and reasonably found his explanations to be lacking. I note that although [NAME] now claims that the [NAME] should have used its legal authorities to obtain his banking records, he acknowledges that there is no record that he ever asked for that to be done. He says that he had an earlier experience with the [NAME] in the context of an audit of his tax return where they had access to his bank records. He assumed they would have access to them in the context of the review of his eligibility but only discovered the [NAME] had not done that when he received the Respondent’s record. [ 38 ] Moreover, as was made clear to [NAME] through his exchanges with [NAME] officials regarding his Record of Employment, it was his responsibility to obtain the documents he needed to establish his entitlement to the benefit; there is no onus on the [NAME] to take any measures to validate his income or seek to obtain third party records: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 159 at para 22 [ [NAME]] ; [NAME] at para 23. It was not unreasonable for the Officer to take into account the fact that [NAME] did not provide any pay stubs, copies of time sheets or other records, or any cheques or bank records to substantiate his employment at the [NAME]. In light of the discrepancies in the information he had provided, it was reasonable for the Officer to ask for other documents to substantiate [NAME]’s income: [NAME] at para 27; [NAME] at paras 20-22. [ 39 ] Under s. 6 of the CRB Act , [NAME] was required to provide any documents the Officer required in order to assess his eligibility for the benefit. And the criteria are non-discretionary: [NAME] at para 41; [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 305 at para 23 ( aff’d on appeal : 2022 FCA 187); [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 1247 at para 24.. [ 40 ] I cannot accept [NAME]’s argument that the Officer should have ignored the small discrepancies in the various documents he submitted. He submits that the [NAME] policy for auditing tax returns is to ignore amounts of less than $100 and says that this should have been done in his case. There are several problems with this argument. First, even if there is such a policy for [NAME] taxation audit purposes, there is no evidence in the record that a similar policy exists in respect of the [NAME]’s administration of the CRB on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Social Development. In the decision under review, the Officer was reviewing [NAME]’s eligibility for the CRB, not auditing his tax returns. [ 41 ] Second, as the discussion above demonstrates, there are several inconsistencies between the various documents [NAME] had submitted, and many of these involve sums much larger than $100. More importantly, the Officer asked about the discrepancies, but [NAME] was not able to explain the differences in the amounts, other than stating that he had completed his tax returns incorrectly. The Agent was not satisfied with the explanations provided, and noted the absence of other documents to back up [NAME]’s claim that he worked at the [NAME]. I can find no basis to interfere with this finding, in light of the record. It is for the Officer to assess the sufficiency of the evidence, and it is not my role on judicial review to interfere with the Officer’s assessment of the facts absent a fundamental misapprehension of the evidence or an indication that key evidence was ignored: [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 229 at para 19. [ 42 ] [NAME]’s primary argument was that the [NAME] was acting inconsistently in accepting the income tax he paid, based on his taxation assessments, but not accepting the employment income shown on those assessments in determining his eligibility for the CRB. On its face, this argument seems to reflect simple common sense. However, this Court’s case-law has rejected this approach, for several reasons: see, for example, [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 139 at paras 29-35 [ [NAME]] ; [NAME] at paras 18-19; [NAME] at para 27; [NAME] at para 30; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FC 117 at para 35 [ [NAME]] . First, as the record in this case shows, income tax assessments can be adjusted, challenged and changed through a separate process, and they are therefore not always accepted as conclusive proof of an individual’s income. As stated by Justice Turley in [NAME] at paragraph 30: [ADDRESS] has determined that while tax assessments can provide income information to the [NAME] about an applicant’s eligibility, they neither prove that the applicant actually earned the income reported in their income tax return nor prove that their income was earned from an eligible source: [NAME] v Canada (Revenue Agency) , 2023 FC 1382 at para 21; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 139 at para 25. [ 43 ] Second, in assessing eligibility for the CRB, the Officer is not administering the Income Tax Act , RSC 1985, c 1 (5 th Supp.), but rather is acting on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Social Development pursuant to the Canada Recovery Benefits Act , SC 2020, c 12, s. 2: see [NAME] at para 2. Thus, for example, whether an individual owes income taxes or is due to receive an income tax refund is not pertinent in assessing eligibility for the CRB. These are different statutes, serving different purposes, and subject to different processes and policies: [NAME] at para 39. [ 44 ] For all of these reasons, and consistent with the unbroken line of authorities of this Court, I cannot accept [NAME]’s argument about the apparent inconsistency in the [NAME]’s treatment of his income tax assessments. [ 45 ] For the reasons set out above, I can find no basis to conclude that the Further Second Review decision is unreasonable. B. There was no denial of procedural fairness [ 46 ] [NAME]’s procedural fairness claim rests on two main points: he says that the [NAME] failed to give adequate notice or reasons for the inconsistency in the treatment of his income and for the decision reversing the initial approval of his eligibility for [NAME] benefits. He says that the [NAME] acted unfairly in failing to use its legal powers to confirm his income during the relevant period. Second, he points to the response to a service complaint he filed with [NAME] which he says indicates that the Officer was reprimanded, thus indicating a failure to follow the policies and procedures for assessing CRB eligibility. [ 47 ] I cannot accept either argument. [ 48 ] I have already discussed [NAME]’s argument about the allegedly inconsistent treatment of his income tax assessments, and there is no need to repeat that here. I also reject his claim that the [NAME] acted unfairly by failing to invoke their legal powers to obtain bank records. The [NAME] was not obliged to do that when reviewing his eligibility for the CRB. The fact that [NAME] may possess legal authorities in the enforcement of other legislation does not create any obligation on the organization to rely on these powers when assessing CRB eligibility. The onus was on [NAME] to either provide the necessary documents or to explain why he failed to do so in a way that satisfied the Officer. He did not do that here, and cannot shift the blame to the [NAME] for that. [ 49 ] [NAME] also argues that the [NAME] acted unfairly in failing to explain their reasons for reversing the initial decision to award him CRB benefits. That argument cannot stand for two main reasons. First, the fact that [NAME] was initially found to be eligible for the CRB was a decision based on the information he declared in his application. That finding was not binding on the [NAME], and it was under no obligation to explain why it decided to review his eligibility for the benefit. Moreover, the explanation for the Further Second Review decision is set out in the letter and the Officer’s notes, which have been discussed at length in the previous section. Nothing more was required to meet the low standard of procedural fairness that applies in the circumstances of this case: [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 1535 at para 33; [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 910 at para 27. [ 50 ] The record in this case demonstrates that the Officer provided [NAME] with the opportunity to know the case against him and the right to be heard. He had every opportunity to provide more information and to answer the Officer’s questions. That is all that fairness demands in these circumstances: [NAME] at paras 19-20; [NAME] at para 26. [ 51 ] For these reasons, I reject [NAME]’s claim that he was denied procedural fairness.

IV. Conclusion [ 52 ] Based on the analysis set out above, the application for judicial review is dismissed. I can find no basis to conclude that the Further Second Review decision was unreasonable, or that [NAME] was denied procedural fairness. [ 53 ] Although the Respondent asked for its costs, in exercise of my discretion under Rule 400 of the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), and considering the nature of this case and the fact that [NAME] did not take any steps to unduly prolong or complicate the proceeding at any stage, I will not award any costs. This is consistent with prior decisions involving similar applications for judicial review: see for example, [NAME]; [NAME]; [NAME]; [NAME]. Each party shall bear their own costs.

JUDGMENT in T-136-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. No costs are awarded. "William F. Pentney" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: T-136-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: vANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA DATE OF HEARING: october 8, 2025

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: pentney j. DATED: February 17, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] FOR THE APPLICANT (SELF-REPRESENTED) [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia For The Respondent