Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review centered on CERB eligibility criteria under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act.

• The applicant received CERB while allegedly earning income exceeding the $1,000 threshold.

• CRA found the applicant ineligible after two internal reviews due to income earned during benefit periods.

• Applicant challenged the fairness of the review process and alleged disregard of supporting evidence.

• Court ruled that CRA followed legislative mandates and procedural fairness was maintained.

• No new evidence was allowed as it was not before the decision-maker and did not meet exceptions.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties involved

Barbara T. Mendiola, a self-represented applicant, applied for and received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) for eight four-week periods between March 15 and September 26, 2020. In 2022, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) initiated a verification process questioning her eligibility based on income thresholds. Mendiola did not initially respond to CRA’s request for documentation but later asked for a review and provided some evidence.

After two reviews conducted by different CRA officers, the agency concluded that Mendiola had earned more than $1,000 in income during the benefit periods and was therefore not eligible for CERB. The applicant sought judicial review of this final decision.

Claims raised by the applicant

Mendiola acknowledged exceeding the $1,000 income threshold but argued that her primary employment was lost due to COVID-19 and that her remaining income came from a lower-paying essential job. She submitted that the CRA breached procedural fairness by ignoring her supporting documents, failing to provide adequate written reasons, and not considering her financial hardship. She also attempted to introduce new evidence about her work history and earnings at the hearing.

Court's reasoning and analysis

Justice Go emphasized that judicial review is limited to the evidence that was before the decision-maker. The new documents submitted by Mendiola did not meet any exceptions allowing for new evidence, such as those related to procedural fairness. The court noted that Mendiola had been advised of the documentation requirements, was given the opportunity to submit them, and ultimately declined to provide additional evidence when asked.

The judge affirmed that the CRA acted within its legislative limits, applying the fixed eligibility criteria under the CERB Act. Since the statute does not permit humanitarian discretion, personal circumstances like financial hardship or employment history were not relevant to the eligibility determination. The officer's findings and process were found to be reasonable and procedurally fair.

Decision and result

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, concluding that the CRA's decision was reasonable and procedurally sound. There was no order as to costs, meaning both parties would bear their own legal expenses.