Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The main question was whether the applicant stopped working for reasons related to COVID-19, qualifying for CERB.

• The CRA failed to consider key evidence and arguments submitted by the applicant during its Further Second Review.

• The court found the CRA’s decision unreasonable due to procedural unfairness and lack of engagement with central submissions.

• The matter was remitted to the CRA for redetermination by a different officer, with guidance on procedural fairness.

• The court clarified that administrative decision-makers must address central arguments but need not respond to every point.

• The applicant was awarded $1,500 in costs for his successful application.

Background and factual context

The applicant, a unionized employee with long service, ceased working after December 23, 2019, due to a medical condition. His ability to return to work was delayed because the COVID-19 pandemic impeded access to necessary medical treatment, resulting in an inability to resume work until September 2020. During this period, the applicant received unemployment insurance for three months, followed by CERB payments from March 15, 2020, to September 26, 2020.

CRA decisions and procedural history

In February 2022, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) notified the applicant that he was ineligible for CERB payments, reasoning that his work cessation was not related to COVID-19. After an unsuccessful “Second Review” and a judicial review that set aside the CRA’s decision, the matter was remitted for a “Further Second Review.” The applicant provided comprehensive evidence and arguments to the CRA, asserting that the pandemic directly affected his ability to obtain treatment and thus his ability to work.

Despite these submissions, the CRA again found him ineligible in September 2024, concluding that he did not stop working for COVID-19-related reasons. The applicant sought judicial review of this latest decision.

Court’s analysis and findings

The court found that the CRA’s Further Second Review was unreasonable because it failed to consider the central evidence and arguments submitted by the applicant. This constituted a breach of procedural fairness and resulted in an unreasonable decision. The court emphasized that while administrative decision-makers are not required to address every argument, they must meaningfully grapple with the key issues raised by the parties, as established in the Vavilov decision.

Remedy and outcome

The court declined to make a directed finding on the applicant’s eligibility, instead remitting the matter back to the CRA for redetermination by a different officer, in accordance with the principles of justification and transparency. The applicant was awarded lump-sum costs of $1,500, recognizing his success in the application and the importance of encouraging proper administrative conduct. The applicant was the successful party, with costs granted in his favor.