Federal Court Rejects Judicial Review of CRA Decision on CERB, CRB & CRSB

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260611 Docket: T-3895-25 Citation: 2026 FC 785 Ottawa, Ontario, June 11, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Manson BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE [NAME] [NAME] OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Introduction [ 1 ] This is an application for judicial review of a Canada Revenue Agency ( “[NAME]” ) [NAME]-review decision (the “Decision” ) regarding the Applicant’s eligibility for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit ( “CERB” ), the Canada Recovery Benefit ( “CRB” ), and the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit ( “CRSB” ). [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, the application is dismissed.

II. Background [ 3 ] The Applicant, [APPELLANT], applied for and received benefits under three COVID-19 benefit programs. He received CERB for periods between March 15, 2020 and July 4, 2020. He received CRB for periods between April 25, 2021 and July 17, 2021, and for the period from August 1, 2021 to August 14, 2021. He received CRSB for the period from April 18, 2021 to April 24, 2021. [ 4 ] On June 24, 2024, the [NAME] sent the Applicant a letter advising that his eligibility for COVID-19 benefits was under review. The letter identified the benefits at issue and requested documentation to support his eligibility, referring to documents such as employment records, income records, Records of Employment, pay stubs, and other materials capable of showing income, work interruption, reduced hours, and the connection between any reduction and COVID-19. [ 5 ] The Applicant responded to the [NAME] on July 31, 2024. He provided documents to the [NAME] including a Record of Employment from [NAME] dated July 29, 2024, T4 slips from 2019 and 2020, a 2021 T4A, and a letter. [ 6 ] On October 30, 2024, a [NAME] officer conducting the first review of the Applicant’s eligibility telephoned the Applicant. The Applicant answered the call and provided identifying information. The Applicant then advised the [NAME] officer that he did not want to continue discussing the matter by telephone because of security concerns. The Applicant asked that any further information requests be communicated in writing or through secure [NAME] channels. The [NAME] officer advised the Applicant that review officers could not communicate by email or ordinary correspondence except through decision letters. The [NAME] officer provided information so that the Applicant could call back through the [NAME] validation line to confirm that he was dealing with [NAME]. [ 7 ] On November 12, 2024, the [NAME] issued a first-review letter finding the Applicant ineligible for CERB, CRB, and CRSB, which stated that: a) the Applicant was not eligible for CERB because he earned more than $1,000 of employment or self-employment income during the applicable payment period and did not stop working or have reduced hours for reasons related to COVID-19; b) the Applicant was not eligible for CRB because he did not have a 50% reduction in average weekly income compared to the previous year due to COVID-19; and c) the Applicant was not eligible for CRSB because his scheduled work week was not reduced by at least 50% because he was self-isolating for reasons related to COVID-19. [ 8 ] The November 12, 2024 letter advised the Applicant that he could request a [NAME] review. The Applicant requested [NAME] review on November 27, 2024. [ 9 ] In support of the [NAME] review, the Applicant submitted additional materials to the [NAME], including: a) pay slips; b) Records of Employment; c) T4 and T4A slips; and d) an Excel spreadsheet setting out the Applicant’s calculations of income and income reduction for the relevant periods. [ 10 ] A different [NAME] officer (the “[NAME]” ) was assigned to conduct the [NAME] review. On August 19, 2025, the [NAME] called the Applicant by telephone. The [NAME] provided her name, identification number, telephone number, and availability. The [NAME] advised the Applicant that, if he had security concerns, he could call [NAME] directly and ask to speak to her. The [NAME] also advised the Applicant that she needed to hear from him by September 2, 2025, failing which she would decide the matter on the basis of the information already on file. [ 11 ] The Applicant did not call the [NAME] back by September 2, 2025.

III. The Decision [ 12 ] The record contains the [NAME]’s contemporaneous notes, which form part of the reasons ( [NAME] v Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2022 FC 1670 at para 14). The [NAME]’s August 19, 2025 note states that she advised the Applicant to call back by September 2, 2025, failing which she would conduct her final review based on the information already on file with the [NAME]; she made the Decision on September 3, 2025. [ 13 ] On September 5, 2025, the [NAME] issued the Decision. The Decision maintained the finding that the Applicant was not eligible for CERB, CRB, or CRSB. [ 14 ] The Decision found the Applicant ineligible for CERB for two stated reasons: he earned more than $1,000 of employment or self-employment income during the applicable payment period, and he did not stop working or have his hours reduced for reasons related to COVID-19. [ 15 ] The Decision found the Applicant ineligible for CRB because he did not have a 50% reduction in average weekly income compared to the previous year due to COVID-19. [ 16 ] The Decision found the Applicant ineligible for CRSB because his scheduled work week was not reduced by at least 50% because he was self-isolating for reasons related to COVID-19.

IV. Issues [ 17 ] The issues: What evidence may the Court consider on judicial review? Did the [NAME] breach procedural fairness? Is the Decision reasonable? V. Standard of Review [ 18 ] The standard of review with respect to the Applicant’s procedural rights is correctness or a standard with the same import ( [COMPANY] v Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras 34-35 and 54-55, citing Mission Institution v [NAME] , 2014 SCC 24 at para 79). The standard of review with respect to the [NAME]’s substantive findings is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ] at para 25).

VI. Analysis A. The Record Before the Court [ 19 ] On judicial review, the Court generally confines itself to the record before the decision maker, subject to limited exceptions such as background context, proof of procedural defects, or to show a complete absence of evidence on a particular finding ( Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v [NAME] (Access Copyright) , 2012 FCA 22 at paras 19-20; [NAME] v Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2018 FCA 48 at para 8). [ADDRESS] must assess the reasonableness of the Decision on the basis of the record that was before the [NAME]. [ 20 ] The Respondent argues that the Applicant submits documents that were not before the [NAME] at the time of the Decision, specifically: a) a pay slip issued by [COMPANY]; b) pay slips and cheques issued by [NAME] ([NAME] [COMPANY]); c) [COMPANY] forms and a [NAME]-19 test result from April 2021; and d) an [NAME] statement of services provided issued on November 1, 2025, showing pay dates between April 2021 and February 2022. [ 21 ] The Respondent submits that no exceptions apply for this Court to consider the Applicant’s additional documents during judicial review of the Decision. The Applicant’s additional materials go to the merits of his eligibility for benefits and do not meet the necessary criteria to satisfy any of the enumerated exceptions to consider them in assessing reasonableness and therefore have not been so considered. B. Statutory Framework [ 22 ] Sections 2 and 6 of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act , SC 2020, c 5, s 8 [ CERB Act ] set the CERB eligibility requirements, and for the periods relevant here. Those requirements included that the worker ceased working for reasons related to COVID-19 for at least 14 consecutive days within the applicable four-week period, and did not receive employment or self-employment income, subject to regulation, in respect of the consecutive days on which they had ceased working. The Income Support Payment (Excluded Nominal Income) Regulations , SOR/2020-90 excluded such income where the total received in respect of those consecutive days was $1,000 or less. [ 23 ] CRB and CRSB were governed by the Canada Recovery Benefits Act , SC 2020, c 12, s 2 [ CRB Act ]. Section 3 of the CRB Act set out CRB eligibility criteria, including that, during the relevant CRB period and for reasons related to COVID-19, the applicant was not employed or self-employed, or had a reduction of at least 50% in average weekly employment or self-employment income relative to the applicable pre-claim reference period. Section 10 of the CRB Act set out CRSB eligibility criteria, including that the applicant was unable to work for at least 50% of the time they would otherwise have worked for reasons connected to COVID-19 illness, vulnerability, quarantine, isolation, or related circumstances. [ 24 ] Section 10 of the CERB Act authorizes the Minister to require information to verify an applicant’s CERB benefit eligibility, and subsection 5(3) of the CERB Act states that a CERB applicant is responsible for providing any information the Minister requires of them in respect of their CERB application. Section 6 of the CRB Act authorizes the Minister to require information to verify an applicant’s CRB benefit eligibility. Section 13 of the CRB Act sets out that an applicant must provide the Minister with any information that the Minister may require in respect of the application. [ 25 ] The CERB Act and the CRB Act do not prescribe internal [NAME] review procedures. The record shows that the [NAME] adopted a two-step administrative process: an initial eligibility review followed by a [NAME] review by another officer if requested by within 30 days. C. Procedural Fairness [ 26 ] The Applicant submits that the [NAME] breached procedural fairness because it refused to communicate specific concerns in writing after he raised security concerns about telephone communication. The Applicant argues that he did not refuse to participate; rather, he submits that he requested a secure method of communication and asked that any further information requests to be made through official [NAME] channels. [ 27 ] The Applicant also argues that the [NAME]’s internal notes show that the [NAME] had specific questions and concerns about his file, including questions about income support documents, work history, employers, and income calculations. The Applicant submits that fairness required the [NAME] to put those concerns to him clearly and in writing before relying on “insufficient information” as the basis for an adverse decision. [ 28 ] The Respondent submits that the process was fair. The Respondent argues that: a) the June 24, 2024 letter told the Applicant what information was required; b) the November 12, 2024 first-review letter told the Applicant why the [NAME] considered him ineligible for the benefits; and c) the [NAME]-review process gave him another opportunity to provide materials. [ 29 ] The Respondent submits that the Applicant chose not to discuss his eligibility by telephone, even after being given a secure callback method. [ 30 ] I agree with the Respondent. [ 31 ] The Applicant was not left unaware that eligibility was in issue. The June 24, 2024 letter advised him that the [NAME] was reviewing his eligibility for COVID-19 benefits and asked for supporting documents. The November 12, 2024 first-review letter identified the reasons why the [NAME] found him ineligible for each benefit. The Applicant then sought a [NAME] review and provided additional documentation. [ 32 ] During the [NAME] review, the [NAME] did not decide immediately on the existing record; she attempted to speak with the Applicant. She gave him identifying information, contact information, and a deadline. The [NAME] also gave the Applicant a secure way to proceed: he could call [NAME] directly and ask to speak with her to reduce the risk that the Applicant would be providing information to an unknown caller. [ 33 ] While the Applicant’s caution about unsolicited telephone calls is understandable, the question is not whether the Applicant’s concern was understandable, it is whether the [NAME]’s process was procedurally unfair. [ 34 ] In these circumstances, fairness did not require the [NAME] to conduct the [NAME] review only by written correspondence. The Applicant had previously communicated with [NAME] by telephone. He was given a way to call [NAME] himself rather than continue with an incoming call. The [NAME] told that Applicant that, if he did not call back by September 2, 2025, the [NAME] would decide based on the existing file. [ 35 ] The Applicant argues that the [NAME]’s internal action plan identified specific missing information that should have been provided in writing. While the [NAME] doing so may have made the process clearer and likely reduced the Applicant’s sense of procedural opacity, procedural fairness does not require the best possible process, it only requires a fair process. [ 36 ] Here, the [NAME]’s attempt to obtain clarification from the Applicant by telephone, combined with the earlier written notices and the secure callback option, provided a meaningful opportunity [NAME] to respond. The Applicant chose not to use that opportunity. [ 37 ] The Applicant also relies on an apparent incorrect telephone number in one [NAME] call log. That discrepancy does not establish unfairness; it likely shows a typo in a call log note. The record shows that [NAME] officers did reach the Applicant by telephone during both the first and [NAME] reviews. The incorrect number therefore did not deprive the Applicant of notice or an opportunity to participate in the [NAME] review. [ 38 ] The Applicant further relies on a [NAME] internal note referencing CESB, a benefit for which he says he never applied. That reference is troubling in the limited sense that it suggests imprecise note-taking, likely a typo since the letters “E” and “R” are next to each other on a keyboard. However, the September 5, 2025 Decision did not deny CESB. It addressed CERB, CRB, and CRSB. The operative reasons for the Decision concerned those three benefits. The CESB reference was not material to the outcome. [ 39 ] I therefore find no breach of procedural fairness. D. Reasonableness of the Decision [ 40 ] The Applicant submits that the Decision was unreasonable because it failed to engage with the evidence he provided, pointing to his submitted T4 slips, T4A slips, Records of Employment, pay stubs, and his income spreadsheet. The Applicant argues that these materials showed income reduction, work interruption, repayment entries, and eligibility for the benefits. He submits that the [NAME]’s conclusion that the information was insufficient was conclusory. [ 41 ] The Applicant further submits that the [NAME] improperly characterized him as unwilling to provide personal information. He argues that the record shows that he provided identifying information and asked only that further substantive requests be made securely and in writing. [ 42 ] The Respondent submits that the [NAME] considered the Applicant’s documentation but reasonably concluded that it did not establish eligibility. The Respondent argues that the Applicant’s documents did not show, for the particular benefit periods, that he stopped working or had reduced hours for reasons related to COVID-19, that he had the required 50% income reduction due to COVID-19, or that his scheduled work week was reduced by at least 50% because he was self-isolating for reasons related to COVID-19. [ 43 ] The Respondent also argues that the Applicant’s self-prepared spreadsheet was not enough to support his eligibility without corroborating documents. The Respondent argues that the [NAME] was entitled to assess the weight of the documents and to conclude that the Applicant had not met his onus. [ 44 ] While the September 5, 2025 letter communicating the Decision is brief, the [NAME]’s notes form part of the reasons. Those notes show that the [NAME] reviewed the documents on file and identified unresolved concerns. The [NAME]’s concerns included: a) the Applicant’s employment schedule; b) the Applicant’s payment schedule; c) methods of employment payment; d) how COVID-19 impacted the Applicant’s hours and income; e) the alignment between certain employment records; and f) the absence of documents for some of the Applicant’s employers. [ 45 ] The [NAME]’s noted concerns went to the statutory criteria. For CERB, the Applicant had to show not only employment income or changed work circumstances, but that he stopped working or had reduced hours for COVID-19-related reasons and met the income restrictions. For CRB, annual income slips were insufficient; the Applicant had to show at least a 50% reduction in average weekly employment or self-employment income for COVID-19-related reasons in the relevant periods. For CRSB, a [NAME] reduction in work or income was insufficient; the Applicant had to show that he was unable to work for at least 50% of the time he would otherwise have worked because of COVID-19 illness, vulnerability, quarantine, isolation, or another qualifying COVID-19-related reason. [ 46 ] The [NAME] did not ignore the evidence that the Applicant provided. While T4s, T4As, Records of Employment, and pay stubs can show income, employers, and periods of employment, they may not, without more, show why work ended, why hours were reduced, whether the reduction was caused by COVID-19, or whether a particular statutory threshold was met for a particular benefit period. [ 47 ] The Applicant’s Excel spreadsheet was also relevant but not determinative. A self-prepared spreadsheet may organize an applicant’s position and calculations, but it does not necessarily prove the underlying figures or establish causation. The [NAME] was entitled to determine whether the Applicant’s spreadsheet was supported by source documents. [ 48 ] The onus was on the Applicant to establish eligibility on a balance of probabilities ( [NAME] v Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2023 FC 1182 at para 44). The [NAME] was entitled to find that the Applicant had not discharged that onus if the documents in the record before them did not establish the required elements for the specific periods, which is the case here. [ 49 ] The Applicant relies on decisions of this Court in which [NAME]-19 benefit decisions were set aside because the reasons did not grapple with important evidence or because the decision maker merely asserted insufficiency. Those authorities do not impose uniform requirements for [NAME] reasons in every case. The question is whether, in this case, the reasons and record permit the Court to understand why the [NAME] reached the Decision; they do. [ 50 ] The Decision identified the eligibility grounds on which the Applicant failed. The [NAME]’s notes show their concern that the documents did not substantiate the Applicant’s claimed work reduction, income reduction, COVID-19 connection, and CRSB self-isolation-related reduction. The [NAME] called the Applicant seeking additional information before making the Decision, spoke to the Applicant, and set a deadline [NAME] to call back. The Applicant did not call the [NAME] back by the deadline. [ 51 ] The Applicant argues that [NAME] failed to explain what additional verification would have resolved the uncertainty. The record shows that the [NAME] sought further information about the Applicant’s work schedules, payment schedules, payment methods, employer documentation, and the connection between the Applicant’s employment circumstances and COVID-19. The [NAME]’s notes sufficiently disclose the path of reasoning. The Applicant did not return the [NAME]’s call by the set deadline and therefore did not discuss with the [NAME] the additional information the [NAME] sought. [ 52 ] The Applicant also argues that the [NAME] failed to address repayment entries for CERB Period 4. This point does not undermine the Decision. While repayment may be relevant to the amount owing, it does not prove eligibility for the period. The [NAME]’s task was to determine whether the Applicant met the eligibility criteria; a repayment entry did not answer the statutory questions concerning work interruption, income threshold, and COVID-19 causation. [ 53 ] The record does not support the Applicant’s broader submission that the [NAME] simply disregarded his materials. The [NAME]’s notes show that the [NAME] reviewed the Applicant’s submitted materials. On judicial review, the Court’s role is not to reweigh the evidence, but to determine whether the decision is justified, transparent and intelligible in light of the record and relevant constraints ( [APPELLANT] at paras 83, 99, 125-126). [ 54 ] While the Applicant submitted some employment and income evidence, the [NAME] identified gaps between that evidence and the statutory requirements. The [NAME]’s reasons identify the three benefit programs and the specific eligibility requirements that were not met. The [NAME]’s notes explain why the Applicant’s submitted documents left the [NAME] unable to verify eligibility. [ 55 ] The Decision is justified, transparent, and intelligible and therefore reasonable.

VII. Conclusion [ 56 ] The application for judicial review is dismissed. [ 57 ] In the circumstances, including the Applicant’s self-represented status, I make no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT in T-3895-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application is dismissed. No costs are awarded. "Michael D. Manson" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-3895-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE [NAME] [NAME] OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: May 27, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [APPELLANT] J. DATED: June 11, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] [NAME] (ON HIS [APPELLANT]) [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] [NAME] of Canada Halifax, Nova Scotia For The Respondent