Federal Court Rejects CRB Eligibility Challenge Due to Lack of Evidence
📌 In brief
A self-employed financial advisor applied for the Canada Recovery Benefit but was denied eligibility. The Federal Court dismissed his challenge because he did not provide enough evidence to prove his net income met the eligibility criteria.
⚖️ Legal holding
A claimant must provide sufficient evidence to establish their eligibility for government benefits.
📖 Technical summary
The decision is reasonable as the claimant failed to provide necessary information to establish his eligibility for the Canada Recovery Benefit.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Federal Court dismissed a claimant's application for judicial review challenging the denial of his eligibility for the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) due to insufficient evidence provided regarding his net income.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Date: 20260702 Docket: T-2035-24 Citation: 2026 FC 893 Toronto, Ontario, July 2, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent
REASONS AND
JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME], seeks judicial review of a decision made by the Canada Revenue Agency ([NAME]) to deny his eligibility for the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB). He claims that the decision is unreasonable for its unresponsiveness to the evidence, and unfair because he was not provided a meaningful opportunity to address the [NAME]’s concerns. [ 2 ] For the reasons below, the decision is reasonable and the process followed by the [NAME] was fair. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
II. Background [ 3 ] [NAME] was a self-employed financial advisor when he applied for CRB on January 5, 2021. He received benefits for the period of December 20, 2020, to October 23, 2021. [ 4 ] [NAME] was contacted by the [NAME] on March 27, 2023, to confirm that he was eligible for CRB benefits, specifically, to confirm that he could demonstrate a net income over $5,000.00 for the qualifying periods. [ 5 ] The [NAME] then determined [NAME] to be ineligible, because he self-reported a net income of only $1590.00 on his T1 tax forms for 2019. [NAME] confirmed via telephone call that he incurred expenses of approximately $28,000.00 in 2019 associated with self-employment work. The [NAME] found that his reported gross income for 2019 on his T1 tax return was roughly $39,000.00. Similarly, his stated net income for 2020 was $1,071.00. [ 6 ] [NAME] challenged this decision by requesting a second review. He claimed that his net income in the 12 months prior to the date of his application met the $5,000.00 threshold, which is distinct from the net income requirements for the 2019 and 2020 tax years. The [NAME] requested that [NAME] submit expense documents and bank statements for the 12 months prior to his application, but these were not provided. [ 7 ] The [NAME]’s decision on the second review found that [NAME] was ineligible because he did not earn at least $5,000.00 in net self-employment income in 2019, 2020 or in the 12 months before the date of his application. The [NAME] stated that they could not calculate the net income of [NAME] during the 12-month period before his application because he did not provide the list of expenses they requested. The Second Reviewer also found that [NAME] did not earn at least $5,000.00 based on his tax return for 2019.
III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 8 ] As a preliminary issue, the Respondent objects to the admissibility of the Applicant’s Affidavit contained in the Applicant’s record, which was not the same affidavit served on the Respondent pursuant to the Rule 306 of the Federal Court Rules , SOR/98-106 [ The Rules ]. The Respondent is correct and the Affidavit will not be considered by the Court. [ 9 ] [NAME] argues the decision is unreasonable for failing to take account of his evidence. This issue will be considered pursuant to the reasonableness standard set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ], affirmed in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21. A reasonable decision must bear the hallmarks of justification, transparency and intelligibility ( [NAME] at para 99). [ 10 ] The assessment of whether a breach of procedural fairness has taken place does not involve a standard of review. Instead, a reviewing court asks, “with a sharp focus on the nature of the substantive rights involved and the consequences to the individual, whether a fair and just process was followed” ( Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at para 54. See also [NAME] v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Protection) , 2022 FC 1482 at para 4).
IV. Analysis A. The decision of ineligibility is reasonable [ 11 ] Section 3(1)(d) of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act , being part 2 of the COVID-19 Response Measures Act, SC 2020, c 12, required that [NAME] had a total income of at least $5,000.00 in 2019 or in the 12-month period prior to their application. The determinative issue in this case is whether the evidence before the Second Reviewer supported the conclusion that [NAME] did not establish his eligibility. [ 12 ] The Second Review reported that [NAME]’s expenses were necessary to determine his net income for the 12-month period prior to his application. He was requested to provide those expenses, but he did not do so. By failing to provide the requested information, he also failed to establish his eligibility for the benefits he received ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 980 at para 26). [NAME] alleges that “evidence” was ignored by the Second Reviewer but does not identify any information in the record that established his eligibility. B. There was no unfairness in the decision-making process [ 13 ] [NAME] argues that he was deprived of the opportunity to know the case he had to meet. The burden of proof to establish that a breach of procedural fairness occurred rests with him ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2011 FC 448 at para 49; Citizens for [COMPANY] v [COMPANY] of Niagara , 2015 ONSC 2058 at para 52). [ 14 ] The record reveals that [NAME] was specifically advised to provide a list of his expenses for the 12-month period prior to his application, but he did not provide the information requested. There is nothing in the record that suggests he was treated unfairly.
V. Conclusion [ 15 ] The [NAME]’s decision is reasonable, because [NAME] failed to provide information establishing that he was eligible for the benefits he received. Given that he was specifically advised to provide the information required to establish his eligibility, there was no breach of fairness. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
JUDGMENT in T-2035-24 THIS COURT’S
JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed without costs. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: t-2035-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: JULY 2, 2026
REASONS AND
JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: JULY 2, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME]-REPRESENTED (ON HIS OWN BEHALF) Léa Rif For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The claimant must provide sufficient evidence to establish their eligibility for government benefits.
- The claimant was advised to provide a list of expenses for the 12-month period prior to his application.
- The claimant did not provide the requested information to establish his eligibility for the benefits.
- The claimant was treated fairly as there was no indication of unfair treatment in the record.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant's evidence was ignored by the Second Reviewer.
- The claimant did not provide any specific information in the record that established his eligibility.
- The claimant alleged a breach of procedural fairness but did not provide evidence to support this claim.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Federal Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review, confirming the denial of his eligibility for the Canada Recovery Benefit.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant met the eligibility criteria for the Canada Recovery Benefit based on his net income.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the claimant was ineligible for the benefit because he failed to provide sufficient evidence of his net income meeting the eligibility criteria.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Canada Recovery Benefits Act, section 3(1)(d) was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the claimant did not provide the necessary evidence to establish his eligibility for the benefit.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they provide all necessary documentation to support their eligibility for government benefits.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered was the claimant's tax returns and the requested list of expenses for the 12-month period prior to his application.