Federal Court Upholds CRA’s CERB Eligibility Decision

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260526 Docket: T-2749-25 Citation: 2026 FC 679 Toronto, Ontario, May 26, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks judicial [NAME] of a July 7, 2025 [NAME] [NAME] decision [Decision] of the Canada Revenue Agency [[NAME]] that found her ineligible for certain Canada Emergency Response Benefits [CERB] that had been received under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act, SC 2020, c 5, s 8 [ CERB Act ]. [ 2 ] In particular, in the Decision the [NAME] [NAME] [Officer] found that the Applicant did not earn at least $5,000.00 (before taxes) of employment and/or self-employment income in 2019 or in the 12 months before the date of her CERB application, a requirement which was an eligibility condition for qualifying for CERB benefits. The Applicant argues that the Decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair. [ 3 ] For the reasons that follow, this application is dismissed II. Background [ 4 ] The Applicant is a self-employed copy writer, author, public speaker and freelance journalist. During the pandemic, she applied for CERB benefits on or about September 15, 2020, after contacting the [NAME] to inquire about eligibility for the program on September 8 th and 15 th , 2020. In sum, the Applicant applied for and received CERB benefits totaling $14,000.00, for the seven four-week periods between March 15, 2020 and September 26, 2020. By letter dated December 3, 2020, the [NAME] informed the Applicant that they would [NAME] her CERB eligibility. [ 5 ] As noted in an April 8, 2024 letter to the Applicant, upon its first [NAME], the [NAME] determined that the Applicant was not eligible for CERB benefits stating that she did not meet the eligibility criteria of having earned at least $5,000.00 (before taxes) of employment and/or self-employment income in either 2019, or in the 12 months before the date of her initial CERB application. By letter dated May 3, 2024, the Applicant requested a [NAME] [NAME] of her CERB application. [ 6 ] The [NAME]’s [NAME] [NAME] letter dated July 7, 2025, also found that the Applicant’s income did not meet the $5,000.00 threshold during the requisite time periods. In essence, the Applicant had submitted documentation which she stated established that her income for “September 2019-September 2020” totalled $5,269.22, as follows: September 2019: $1,500.00 (copy of cheque included) September 2019: $125.00 (copy of invoice, money transfer included) October 2019: $225.00 (copy of invoice, money transfer included) January 2020: $3,400.00 (copy of invoice included) April-May 2020: $17.14 (royalties, bank statement + 1042-S [2 pages]) May-June 2020: $2.08 (royalties, bank statement) [ 7 ] However, the Officer determined that as the cheque from September 2019, from the [NAME], was dated September 5, 2019 and the invoice for $125.00 was dated September 6, 2019 (with corresponding payment received on September 9, 2019), because the date of the Applicant’s CERB application was September 15, 2020, those two items did not constitute income earned in the 12 months before the CERB Application (i.e. between September 15, 2019 to September 14, 2020). Without those entries, the remainder of the income earned in the 12 months before the application was determined to total $3,644.22, and fell short of the $5,000.00 threshold. The total amount of income earned in 2019 also did not reach $5,000.00, as for the year 2019, the Applicant's T1 Return Gross Business Income and Net Business Income was reported to be $2,950.00. [ 8 ] On August 1, 2025, the Applicant filed an application for judicial [NAME] of the [NAME]’s Decision.

III. Preliminary Issues A. Style of Cause [ 9 ] The Applicant, who is self-represented, named the “Canadian Revenue Agency” as the Respondent in the Notice of Application for this matter. [ 10 ] At the request of the Attorney General, without objection from the Applicant, and in accordance with Rule 303(2) of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR/98-106, the title of this proceeding shall rather be amended to name the Attorney General of Canada as the Respondent in this application. B. New Evidence [ 11 ] The Applicant further sought to introduce a few documents as new evidence before the Court in this matter, requesting that the Court accept evidence that had not been considered by the [NAME]. These documents were: Exhibit “A” , which contained information relating to the Applicant’s tax refund for 2024. Exhibit “C” , emails between the Applicant and the Department of Justice concerning the Applicant’s Rule 317 request for audio recordings of the calls between the Applicant and the [NAME]. Exhibit “E” , certain of the Applicant’s phone records, as referred to at para 21 in her Affidavit. Exhibit “F” , an Affidavit from the Applicant’s mother sworn August 26, 2025, concerning the Applicant’s circumstances and the calls between the Applicant and a [NAME] agent on July 2, 2025. [ 12 ] As discussed with the parties during the hearing, since none of those documents meet any of the exceptions in Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v [NAME] (Access Copyright) , 2012 FCA 22 at para 19, they must be excluded by the Court.

IV. Issues and Standard of [NAME] [ 13 ] The issues at play in this matter are whether the Officer’s Decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. [ 14 ] The parties submit, and I agree, that the presumptive standard of [NAME] of reasonableness as set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 SCR 653 at paras 2, 16–17 [ [NAME] ] applies to judicial [NAME] of the merits of the Decision. In undertaking reasonableness [NAME], the Court must assess whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – namely justification, transparency and intelligibility: [NAME] at para 99.

Accordingly, before a decision can be set aside as unreasonable, the reviewing court must be satisfied that there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit these hallmarks: [NAME] at para 100. [ 15 ] On the question of procedural fairness, such issues are reviewed on a correctness standard, or at least a standard akin to correctness: [COMPANY] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras 54 – 56 [ [COMPANY] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1029 at para 41 [ [NAME] ]. This requires the Court to analyze whether the procedure followed was fair, having regard to all the circumstances: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 936 at para 13 citing [COMPANY] at para 54. The reviewing court determines whether the applicant “knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond” : [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FCA 97 at para 5 citing [COMPANY] at para 56.

V. Analysis A. The Decision is not unreasonable or procedurally unfair [ 16 ] Despite the excellent and heartfelt submissions of the Applicant, I cannot find the Decision to be unreasonable or procedurally unfair. [ 17 ] The Applicant submits that in terms of meeting the $5,000.00 threshold within the requisite 12-month period before her application was filed, she earned $5,269.22 in income from September 2019 to September 2020 and therefore should be considered to have met the CERB eligibility criteria. She states that in her initial conversations with the [NAME] about the CERB program, the 12-month period before her application was filed “was never defined as month-day-year to month-day-year” , and that if the timing is rather considered simply to be from the month of September 2019 to the month of September 2020, then her income surpasses the $5,000.00 threshold. The Applicant states that it was only when the Applicant spoke to the [NAME] on July 2, 2025, that she was told that two of her September earnings were not eligible due to their dates. In the Applicant’s view, this was “moving the goalposts” of CERB eligibility and was unfair, and the Officer’s interpretation of the dates such that it involved consideration down to the days was overly technical. [ 18 ] The Applicant argues that the [NAME] did not “properly define the conditions of the contract” when she spoke with them in September 2020 just before filing her CERB application, and that the [NAME] did not inform her of the problems with her application at that time. She also argues that she was given unclear information by a [NAME] officer when she had called on September 8, 2020 and that based on what she had been told, she may have believed that she needed to earn the income within 12 months before March 2020, since this date had been mentioned in their discussion.

Accordingly, the Applicant states that she did not know the case to meet and the Decision is unreasonable and procedurally unfair. The Applicant seeks an Order declaring that she qualified for CERB and holding that she does not have to repay any outstanding amounts to [NAME]. [ 19 ] Referring to section 2 of the CERB Act and the [NAME]’s Guideline “Confirming Covid-19 benefits eligibility” [Guideline], the Respondent argues that the [NAME] [NAME] reasonably found the Applicant did not earn the requisite $5,000.00 of employment or self-employment income in either of the year 2019 or in the 12 months preceding her application. They assert that the [NAME] [NAME] reviewed the Applicant’s CERB eligibility and correctly found that 12 months before the Applicant applied for CERB constituted September 15, 2019 to September 14, 2020. They submit this interpretation of the requisite time period is consistent with section 28 of the Interpretation Act , RSC 1985, c I-21 [ Interpretation Act ]. This provision reads: Calculation of a period of months after or before a specified day 28 Where there is a reference to a period of time consisting of a number of months after or before a specified day, the period is calculated by (a) counting forward or backward from the specified day the number of months, without including the month in which that day falls; (b) excluding the specified day; and (c) including in the last month counted under paragraph (a) the day that has the same calendar number as the specified day or, if that month has no day with that number, the last day of that month. [Emphasis added] [ 20 ] The Respondent states the Officer correctly omitted the income earned in September 2019 prior to that time, bringing the Applicant’s eligible income down to $3,644.22. As a result, they contend that it was reasonable for the [NAME] [NAME] to find the Applicant ineligible based on the evidence provided. They point out that application of the CERB eligibility criteria is non-discretionary and that in the absence of proof of the requisite income, the Officer was therefore required to make a finding of ineligibility. [ 21 ] Though the Respondent concedes that it is not clear from the Officer’s September 8, 2020 T1Case Notes as to what was explained to the Applicant about the date requirements for CERB eligibility, they note that procedural fairness requirements in such Canada Recover Benefit decisions are “generally on the low end of the spectrum” : [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FC 117 at para 32; [RESPONDENT] at para 46. The Respondent also points to the [NAME] correspondence dated December 3, 2020 and July 11, 2023, as well as the Decision letter as informing the Applicant of the case to meet. Relying on [APPELLANT] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FC 809 at para 37, they assert that the onus is on the claimant to inquire into whether they meet the eligibility criteria for each benefit and that further, the claimant is “taken to know the law” in cases like this even if they had a mistaken view of what the law is: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 397 at para 40.

VI. Analysis [ 22 ] I note that Section 2 of the CERB Act sets out the definition of worker, including the requisite time period for eligibility: worker  means a person who is at least 15 years of age, who is resident in Canada and who, for 2019 or in the 12-month period preceding the day on which they make an application under section 5 , has a total income of at least $5,000 — or, if another amount is fixed by regulation, of at least that amount — from the following sources: (a) employment; (b) self-employment; (c) benefits paid to the person under any of subsections 22(1), 23(1), 152.04(1) and 152.05(1) of the Employment Insurance Act ; and (d) allowances, money or other benefits paid to the person under a provincial plan because of pregnancy or in respect of the care by the person of one or more of their new-born children or one or more children placed with them for the purpose of adoption. ([NAME]) [Emphasis added] [NAME] âgée d’au moins quinze ans qui réside au Canada et dont les revenus — pour l’année 2019 ou au cours des douze mois précédant la date à laquelle [NAME] présente une demande en vertu de l’article 5 — provenant des sources ci-après s’élèvent à au moins cinq mille dollars ou, si un autre montant est fixé par règlement, ce montant : a) un emploi; b) un travail qu’[NAME] exécute pour son compte; c) des prestations qui lui sont payées au titre de l’un des paragraphes 22(1), 23(1), 152.04(1) et 152.05(1) de la Loi sur l’assurance-emploi ; d) des allocations, prestations ou autres sommes qui lui sont payées, en vertu d’un régime provincial, en cas de grossesse ou de soins à donner par [NAME] à son ou ses nouveau-nés ou à un ou plusieurs enfants placés chez [NAME] en vue de leur adoption. (worker) [Je souligne.] [ 23 ] This definition of the requisite time period is also echoed by the Guideline, and reiterated in the undated screenshot of the CERB benefits webpage submitted by the Applicant and received by the [NAME] on May 3, 2024, in this matter. [ 24 ] Given this, I cannot find that the Officer’s interpretation of the provisions related to the relevant time period, and its exclusion of the income earned prior to September 15, 2019, to be unreasonable. Though the Respondent relies on section 28 of the Interpretation Act , I note that, in addition, this Court has also clarified that the relevant time period to establishing eligibility does indeed include consideration of the days in the 12-month period preceding the application for CERB. While the matter considered differing facts, in [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 222 my colleague Justice Grammond held that: [ 5 ] The [NAME] [NAME] officer refused Mr. [NAME] request. She noted that he had not earned eligible income of at least $5,000 in 2019. She then verified whether Mr. [NAME] had earned such income during the 12-month period preceding the application. She noted that this period ended at the time the application was filed, in this case, on May 25, 2020. She therefore calculated the income declared by Mr. [NAME] between May 25, 2019 and May 25, 2020 and arrived at a total of $3862.50. Since this amount was less than $5,000, she concluded that Mr. [NAME] was ineligible to receive CERB. [Emphasis added.] […] [18] In fact, this interpretation was based on the ordinary meaning of the text of this definition, in particular the phrase “in the 12-month period preceding the day on which they make an application”. The phrase “day on which they make an application” clearly refers to the filing of the application and not to the beginning of the period for which benefits are claimed. The interpretation proposed by Mr. [NAME] can hardly be reconciled with the wording of the Act. [ 25 ] With respect to procedural fairness, I note that the Applicant argues that the temporal eligibility requirements were not made clear to her, before she applied for the CERB benefits. [ 26 ] She first essentially conceptualizes the CERB legislative scheme in contractual terms when she argues that there was “no meeting of the minds” as to her understanding of the eligibility requirements. While this Court has often acknowledged the confusion and a lack of clarity in the eligibility criteria, it has also been held in relation to COVID-19 benefits that “an application for benefits created by legislation is generally not understood as giving rise to a contract” : [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2026 FC 454 [ [NAME] ] at para 15. As further held in [NAME] : [15] […] More generally, legislation cannot be analogized to someone’s inner or hidden intentions. Rather, it is the most public form of law. While I recognize that legislation may be difficult for members of the public to access, read and understand, it remains applicable whether it has been explained or vulgarized to a particular person or not. [ 27 ] [ADDRESS] has also established that an argument of legitimate expectation based on government communication, however unclear it may have been, cannot subvert the eligibility requirements of the CERB Act: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 305 at para 23, aff’d 2022 FCA 187; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 1302 at para 12. [ 28 ] The Applicant secondly states that when she spoke with the [NAME] on September 8, 2020 to inquire about the eligibility requirements, she may have been led to believe that the income had to be earned before March 2020 to be eligible. She refers to the [NAME] corresponding to that call, which reads: [NAME] called to apply for CERB March period, probed to understand sincome [ sic ], but it seems that she understood the condition of $5,000 to be over the past 12 months befored [ sic ] today. I explained that it has to be before March 2020, she said that she’ll do calculations and call back. [ 29 ] This record of the interaction is indeed unclear, as it both seems to indicate that the Applicant may have understood that the $5,000.00 needed to be earned in the 12 months before that day, and also seemingly indicates that it was explained this had to be before March 2020. However, I find this brief note does not provide enough information to understand exactly what was discussed or for one to gather context in relation to what was recorded. I also note that while it may be that the Applicant was given incorrect information as to the eligibility period, the thrust of the Applicant’s argument before the Court was generally not that she had been told that income earned in the 12 months before March 2020 was eligible however, but rather that no one had clarified that the requirement that the 12 months needed to be calculated down to a measurement of days as opposed to months. I note that one would expect there to have been a clear focus on the March date had that actually been the Applicant’s understanding from the outset. Further, the records of the Applicant’s initial calls with the [NAME] after she was apprised of the eligibility issue also do not reference that she had believed the eligibility date corresponded to March 2020, but rather was concerned about the counting of days. For example, the [NAME] of July 2, 2025, when she was first told of the eligibility issue, records: [NAME] returned call. Advised reason for call and reviewed documents submitted along with the application date, Sept 16, 2020. [NAME] that 12 months prior to application would not include $1500 cheque from [NAME] or $125 invoice provided, meaning 12 months prior total is below 5K. Asked if there was any additional income during this time that [NAME] could support through documents - no. [NAME] feels this is Unfair [ sic ] as they were not advised upon application 12 months prior would be to the day. [NAME] asked that this is looked into before proceeding with denial. Agreed to get additional opinion however eligibility criteria does state 12 months preceding the date of first application. [ 30 ] In any event, as was also made clear by the Court in Lemay , representations from government officials cannot override legislative dictates: [16] In fact, well-established precedent teaches that one cannot rely on representations, oral or written, made by government officials if they contradict legislation. See, in this regard, my decision in [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 222. In my view, the form at issue in the present case is such a representation that cannot displace the wording of the CESB Act. This remains so even though the form does not directly and clearly refer to the CESB Act. [17] Likewise, the rule of law is best promoted by adherence to the legislative text. The rule of law, especially in its aspect of equal treatment before the law, would be undermined if legislation were to be applied inconsistently depending on representations made by government officials. [ 31 ] As mentioned above, on judicial [NAME] of issues of procedural fairness, the ultimate question is whether an applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond, and the level of procedural fairness owed to CERB applicants is on the low end of the spectrum: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 432 at para 14; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1571 at para 17. With respect to the Officer’s Decision, at least, it seems that the Applicant was given a full and fair opportunity to make submissions to the [NAME], and the Officer took these into account in rendering their decision. I cannot find that the Officer’s Decision lacked procedural fairness. [ 32 ] Though I have found that the Decision has not been established to be either unreasonable or procedurally unfair, I must note that this outcome may raise the spectre of injustice. At the very least it seems clear that the Applicant made a concerted effort to inquire into her eligibility for the CERB benefits before she applied for them. It is evident that she was not given clear information with respect to this, and it may be that she was provided with incorrect information as to the eligibility dates. She states, reasonably, that had the income eligibility period been made clear, she never would have applied for the CERB benefits, which she is now obligated to reimburse. [ 33 ] [ADDRESS] has often found that the onus lies on an Applicant to determine their eligibility for such benefits before applying for and securing them. In this case, it seems the Applicant repeatedly attempted to do just that, only to have been provided with unclear or incorrect information for which she will now suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, the powers granted to this Court in an application for judicial [NAME] do not allow me to remedy this situation, if what the Applicant was told has led to an injustice. I do note however, that if there is injustice, other measures can be taken to remedy it, such as an application for debt remission under section 23 of the Financial Administration Act , RSC 1985, c F-11. Such remission may be granted, for example, where [NAME] have given erroneous advice: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 393 at para 32; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2021 FC 658 at para 34.

VII. Conclusion [ 34 ] For the foregoing reasons, this application for judicial [NAME] is dismissed. [ 35 ] In concluding however, I note the following passage from the Decision under [NAME]: If you received a payment that you were not eligible for, you will be required to repay the amount. We understand that it may not be possible for you to pay your debt immediately and in full. We’re here to help. The [NAME] offers various solutions tailored to your personal situation. In order to access these solutions, please call 1-[PHONE] or go to Canada.ca/resolving-debt-[NAME]. [ 36 ] In the circumstances of this matter, I would expect the [NAME] to adhere to the representations contained in the Decision under [NAME], and to exercise flexibility related to the quantum and/or timing of any repayments. [ 37 ] The Respondent has established that they will not be seeking costs in this matter. I agree that an award of costs against the Applicant would not be appropriate, and none are ordered against either party.

JUDGMENT in T-2749-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial [NAME] is dismissed without costs. The style of cause shall be amended to identify the Attorney General of Canada as the Respondent. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: T-2749-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF [APPELLANT] OF HEARING: vIA vIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: MAY 4, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] j. DATED: mAY 26, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] For The Applicant (ON THEIR [APPELLANT]) [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent