Federal Court Rejects CRB Eligibility Challenge Due to Insufficient Evidence

Date: 20260626 Docket: T-1888-24 Citation: 2026 FC 868 Ottawa, Ontario, June 26, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME], applied for and received Canada Recovery Benefit ( “CRB” ) from September 27, 2020, until October 9, 2021. Almost two years later, [NAME] was notified by the Canada Revenue Agency ( “CRA” ) that she may have been ineligible to receive the CRB and a review had to be conducted. [ 2 ] In June 2024, the [NAME] at CRA ( “[NAME]” ) found her ineligible because she had not demonstrated that she earned at least $5000 of employment and/or self-employment income in the 2019, 2020 or the 12-month period prior to her application for the CRB. [NAME] challenges this determination on judicial review. [ 3 ] Since the June 2024 decision, [NAME]’s 2019 and 2020 taxation years have been reassessed and according to the reassessments, she earned more than $5000 of net self-employment income in both 2019 and 2020. [NAME] argues that the income confirmed in the reassessments ought to be considered in evaluating whether she met the income eligibility requirement for CRB. [ 4 ] I have carefully considered [NAME]’s argument. Though the reassessments were not before the [NAME], they were well aware of [NAME]’s view that the net self-employment income amount stated in her 2020 tax return was inaccurate. The [NAME] engaged [NAME] on this issue, explaining the need for evidence because neither income tax assessments or future reassessments are conclusive proof of her gross income or expenses. Ultimately, the [NAME] was not satisfied based on the evidence provided by [NAME] that her net self-employment income was at least $5000 in the relevant years. This was a determination that was open to the [NAME] to make based on the evidence before them. I see no basis to interfere with that decision.

II. Procedural History and Background [ 5 ] The CRB was implemented by as a response to COVID-19: Canada Recovery Benefits Act , SC 2020, c 12, s 2 [ CRB Act ]. Parliament limited its availability to those who satisfy certain requirements, including relevant to this case, a minimum qualifying net self-employment income of $5,000 for the relevant periods: Eligibility 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 … (d) in the case of an application made under section 4 in respect of a two-week period beginning in 2020, they had, for 2019 or in the 12-month period preceding the day on which they make the application, a total income of at least $5,000 from the following sources: (i) employment, (ii) self-employment … Admissibilité 3 (1) Est admissible à la prestation canadienne de relance économique, 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 personne qui remplit les conditions suivantes : … d) dans le cas d’une demande présentée en vertu de l’article 4 à l’égard d’une période de deux semaines qui débute en 2020, ses revenus provenant des sources ci-après, pour l’année 2019 ou au cours des douze mois précédant la date à laquelle elle présente sa demande, s’élevaient à au moins cinq mille dollars : (i) un emploi, (ii) un travail qu’elle exécute pour son compte … [ 6 ] [NAME] applied for and received payment for the CRB for periods 1 through 27 (September 27, 2020, to October 9, 2021). In May 2023, the CRA advised [NAME] that she was ineligible for CRB because she failed to meet the income eligibility requirement of earning at least $5000 in 2019, 2020 or 12 months preceding her application. [NAME] requested a [NAME] review. In January 2024, the CRA again found her ineligible on the same basis. [NAME] challenged this decision on judicial review (T-357-24). The following month, [NAME] discontinued the judicial review as the Respondent agreed to send the matter back to be redetermined. [ 7 ] In June 2024, on redetermination, the [NAME] found [NAME] was ineligible for the CRB because she failed to meet the income eligibility requirement. [ 8 ] [NAME]’s 2019 and 2020 taxation years were reassessed on February 20, 2025, and July 29, 2024, respectively. These reassessments show self-employment income of $5,608 and $30,854, for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, respectively. However, the re-assessments both post-date the decision and as such were not documents before the [NAME] when they made their decision.

III. Preliminary Issue – Reassessment Evidence [ 9 ] [NAME]’s income tax reassessments for the 2019 and 2020 years postdate the decision under review and therefore were not before the [NAME] when they were making their decision. [ADDRESS] has found in a number of decisions that reassessments that post-date the [NAME]’s decision cannot be considered to evaluate the merits of the eligibility decision (see [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 1902 at para 16; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 216 at para 17; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FC 1029 at para 14; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FC 44 at para 21). Generally, the Court cannot consider evidence not before the decision maker on judicial review ( Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v [NAME] (Access Copyright),  2012 FCA 22 [ Access Copyright ] at paras 19-20, 23). One exception to this general rule is if the new evidence is required to substantiate a procedural fairness claim ( Access Copyright at para 20). [NAME] argued that it was generally unfair to not have the opportunity for the decision to be redetermined now that the reassessments had been completed. I have considered the reassessments only to evaluate this argument and not the merits of [NAME]’s eligibility for the CRB.

IV. Analysis [ 10 ] [NAME] argues that she understood that the process of evaluating her eligibility was ongoing and therefore the reassessments should be considered on redetermination. The problem with this argument is that at the time of the redetermination, the [NAME] was aware that [NAME] disputed the net self-employment amount stated in her income tax assessment. The [NAME] advised [NAME] during a phone call that, even with reassessment, evidence would still be needed to substantiate her claims. This approach is consistent with decisions of this Court which hold that tax returns or reassessments are not conclusive proof that a taxpayer earned the income they self-reported ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1571 at para 23; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 24 at para 39; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 381 at paras 29-38; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 139 at para 35; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 1188 at para 25). [ 11 ] The [NAME] provided [NAME] with several opportunities to submit additional documents and to make further submissions to substantiate both her gross business income and expenses. The [NAME] evaluated [NAME]’s evidence and submissions and was not satisfied that it substantiated a net self-employment amount of at least $5000 in the relevant time periods. [NAME] does not raise any issues with the [NAME]’s evaluation of this evidence. [ 12 ] My role on judicial review is limited. I have to decide whether the CRA was reasonable and fair in its eligibility decision. I have not found that [NAME] has established that there is a sufficiently significant shortcoming in the CRA’s analysis of her eligibility or that the steps the CRA took in the validation process were unfair. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed. [ 13 ] I acknowledge that [NAME] raised issues regarding the significant efforts she has made to try to rectify her errors in her tax assessments and the challenges she will face in repaying these amounts. I note that these concerns may be more appropriately addressed with the CRA with respect to a repayment plan. The [NAME] notes in their decision letter: “We understand that it may not be possible for you to pay your debt immediately or in full. We’re here to help.” [ 14 ] The Respondent indicated in their written materials that they were seeking costs but did not make any further submissions on this issue at the hearing. [NAME] was unsuccessful on the judicial review, I exercise my discretion under Rule 400 of the Federal Court Rules ,   SOR/98-106 to not order costs against her given her personal circumstances and conduct throughout the proceeding ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General),  2025 FC 1111 at para 41; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General),  2022 FC 1183 at para 32).

JUDGMENT in T-1888-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that The application for judicial review is dismissed; and No costs are ordered. "Lobat Sadrehashemi" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: T-1888-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME]

V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 23, 2026

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT AND

JUDGMENT: SADREHASHEMI J DATED: JUNE 26, 2026 APPEARANCE : [NAME] FOR THE APPLICANT (ON HER OWN BEHALF) [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] Department of Justice Canada Winnipeg, Manitoba For The Respondent