Federal Court Rejects Judicial Review of CERB and CRB Eligibility

Date: 20260617 [NAME] : T-1911-25 Citation: 2026 FC 814 Ottawa, Ontario , June 17, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice McDonald BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The self-represented Applicant, [NAME], seeks judicial review of the Canada Revenue Agency ([NAME]) decision that she was ineligible for Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) (collectively, the “Benefits” ) that she received in 2020. [ 2 ] While I am sympathetic to [NAME]’s circumstances, and despite her able submissions, the Court cannot grant the relief she seeks because the [NAME] decisions are consistent with the applicable statutory provisions. This Application for judicial review is therefore dismissed, without costs.

I. Background and [NAME] decision [ 3 ] It is not disputed that [NAME] was unemployed at the time she applied, by phone, for CERB in 2020. She received CERB from March 15, 2020 to September 26, 2020 and then received CRB from September 27, 2020 to November 21, 2020. [ 4 ] By letter dated December 3, 2020, [NAME] wrote to [NAME] stating that they could not confirm her eligibility for CERB. This letter stated that CERB eligibility required at least $5,000 in employment or self-employment income. Employment Insurance (EI) was not considered employment or self-employment income. The letter advised [NAME] that she would have to repay the CERB she received. . [ 5 ] In January 2021, [NAME] called the [NAME] to discuss what she understood to be changes to the eligibility requirements. She was told that someone would follow up. More than two years later, she received a letter dated June 19, 2023, advising that her eligibility was under review and requesting documentation showing that she had earned at least $5,000 in employment or self-employment income . The letter also stated that EI was not eligible income for CRB but the letter did not address whether EI qualified as income for CERB. [ 6 ] In response, [NAME] sent a letter to [NAME] on August 6, 2023, noting that she applied for the benefits in good faith. [ 7 ] By letters dated March 19, 2024, [NAME] advised [NAME] that she was ineligible for both CERB and CRB because she lacked sufficient eligible income in 2019, 2020, or in the 12 months preceding her first application. [NAME] also advised her that she could request a further review and submit additional documentation. [NAME] sought a Second Review of her eligibility and provided a letter explaining her circumstances. [ 8 ] [NAME] also forwarded correspondence to [NAME] dated March 28, 2024, complaining about an unprofessional telephone interaction she had with “[NAME]” . [ 9 ] [NAME] conducted a Second Review which also found [NAME] ineligible for the Benefits, because her income in 2019 and 2020 did not meet the $5,000 threshold of qualifying income. The [NAME]’s internal notes explaining this decision state as follows: Call details: Spoke with BR [Benefits Recipient] and explained that EI didn’t count towards the 5K. BR argued that the criteria said you could have exhausted your EI so why would they not except EI as income then. I explained unfortunately that’s the way the legislation is written and she can file for judicial review with the federal court if she feels the legislation can be interpreted differently. I told her to expect a letter with instructions. Decision: BR Is disputing the fact that her EI should be considered income. I advised it is only considered income if it was from maternity or parental benefits. BR understood but disagrees. Advised she can apply to judicial review if she still disagrees but I will be sending a denial letter. [ 10 ] [NAME] seeks judicial review of the [NAME] decision.

II. Issues and standard of review [ 11 ] [NAME] argues that the [NAME] decision is unreasonable and that [NAME]’s process was unfair. [ 12 ] Reasonableness requires a decision to have justification, transparency, and intelligibility, be based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis, and be justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 85-86). [ 13 ] Procedural fairness is evaluated on a correctness-like standard, where the Court asks “whether the procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances, including the [NAME] factors” ( [COMPANY] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at para 54).

III. Analysis A. Is the [NAME] decision on eligibility reasonable? [ 14 ] [NAME] claims that when she first applied in March 2020, she was unemployed and unable to find work due to Covid. She understood this satisfied the criteria for the Benefits. She claims that the income requirement was changed to exclude EI payments, between when she first applied for the Benefits in March 2020 and when she received a letter in December 2020 from [NAME]. In her words, [NAME]’s interpretation of [NAME] and eligibility was neither “concise nor consistent” . She argues that [NAME] ought not to have provided benefits to her if she was not eligible to receive them. [ 15 ] Although the [NAME]’s communications about benefit eligibility were not always clear, the legislation governing CERB and CRB restricts the types of income that may be counted toward the $5,000 threshold, and regular [NAME] do not qualify ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 1106 at para 30). These requirements have remained unchanged since the legislation was enacted in 2020. [ 16 ] The Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act , SC 2020, c 5, s 8 [ CERB Act ] allows CERB to be paid to a “worker” , which is defined as a person who has a total income, within the designated time period, of at least $5,000 from an exhaustive list of sources (s 2). The only [NAME] included in this list are those paid under ss 22(1), 23(1), 152.04(1), and 152.05(5) of the Employment Insurance Act , SC 1996, c 23 [ EI Act ]. These provisions concern [NAME] for pregnancy and parental leave, neither of which is applicable to [NAME]. This definition in the CERB Act has not changed since the legislation came into effect on March 25, 2020. [ 17 ] Likewise, the Canada Recovery Benefits Act , 2020, c 12, s 2 [CRB Act ] “eligibility” section requires a person to have earned at least $5,000 from a list of sources, which includes only EI paid under the same subsections of the EI Act cited in the CERB Act , or any other source prescribed by regulation. This section has also remained unchanged since the CRB Act came into effect on October 2, 2020, and no other income source was ever prescribed by regulation. [ 18 ] In short, no legislative change affected [NAME]’s eligibility. The [NAME] she received were never qualifying income under either the CERB Act or the CRB Act . [NAME] acknowledged that she was not employed in 2019 and had no income other than [NAME]. It was therefore reasonable for the Second Review to conclude that she did not meet the eligibility requirements for the Benefits. [ 19 ] Finally, [NAME] argues that the legislation is unfair because parental and pregnancy [NAME] qualified as earnings, while regular [NAME] did not. I understand why she views this distinction as unfair. However, that distinction reflects Parliament’s drafting choices, and the [NAME] applied the legislation to [NAME] consistently with its terms. Although the result is harsh, it is a consequence of Parliament’s design of the CERB and CRB schemes. [ 20 ] Overall, [NAME] has not identified any error rendering the Second Review unreasonable. B. Was the [NAME] process fair to [NAME]? [ 21 ] Like her reasonableness arguments, [NAME]’s procedural fairness submissions focus on the [NAME]’s failure to inform her, before or during the period she received the Benefits from March to November 2020, that her regular [NAME] did not qualify as “income” for CERB or CRB purposes. [ 22 ] [NAME] argues that the [NAME] information on entitlement to the CERB and CRB benefits was unclear. In her Affidavit, she states: “I based my application on the criteria that was provided at the time: unemployed, unable to find work due to Covid, income of $5000 in 2019 and had exhausted my Employment Insurance regular benefits”. [ 23 ] Under the legislation, [NAME]’s regular [NAME] never qualified as income under the CERB Act or the CRB Act . Under both statutes, the only eligible [NAME] were those paid for pregnancy and parental leave, which did not apply to her circumstances. The legislation is clear and cannot reasonably be interpreted to treat her regular [NAME] as eligible income for CERB or CRB purposes. [ 24 ] [NAME] argues that the [NAME]’s information and communications were unclear, that would not entitle her to the Benefits because she does not meet the statutory requirements. Even if she was incorrectly told that she was eligible, representations by a government agent cannot override legislation or create substantive rights ( [NAME] v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2018 FC 30 at para 72; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC) at para 26). [ 25 ] The other procedural fairness issue raised by [NAME] is that she did not have an opportunity to present her case. A review of [NAME]’s interactions with [NAME] representatives, although sometimes marked by long delays from [NAME], demonstrates that she had the opportunity to explain her position and submit documents before her eligibility was reviewed. She also submitted two letters: one on August 6, 2023, and another on March 28, 2023. Prior to the Second Review decision, [NAME] spoke on the phone with a [NAME] representative where she again reiterated her view that her EI income should have been eligible for consideration as income for the purposes of CERB and CRB benefits. [ 26 ] In the circumstances, I am satisfied that [NAME] had a fair opportunity to present her case, make submissions, and file supporting evidence. Procedural fairness requires that the process be fair and that [NAME] know the case she had to meet. Here, she knew that case and had the opportunity to respond.

IV. Conclusion [ 27 ] For the above reasons, this judicial review application is dismissed. The Respondent does not seek costs and none are awarded.

JUDGMENT IN T-1911-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This judicial review application is dismissed; and No costs are awarded. blank "Ann Marie McDonald" blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF [NAME] : T-1911-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING : Edmonton, Alberta DATE OF HEARING: june 9, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT : McDonald J. DATED: June 17, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] (ON HER OWN BEHALF) [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : N/A FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Edmonton, Alberta FOR THE RESPONDENT