Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review focused on whether the CRA’s decision denying CERB benefits was reasonable and procedurally fair

• The applicant received CERB but was later deemed ineligible due to income exceeding the $1,000 threshold

• CRA determined the applicant had not stopped working for COVID-19-related reasons as required by CERB eligibility rules

• The applicant challenged the decision, citing financial hardship, unclear guidance, and procedural delays

• Court emphasized that CERB criteria are non-discretionary and cannot be altered based on hardship or fairness concerns

• Ultimately, the Court upheld the CRA’s decision, finding no reviewable error or procedural unfairness

Facts and outcome of the case

Ms. Shanel Higham applied for and received $14,000 in Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) payments for the period between March 15 and September 26, 2020. She later became subject to a review by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), which determined that she was ineligible for the payments. The CRA found that she earned over $1,000 in employment income during the relevant periods and had not stopped working for COVID-19-related reasons, which were both key eligibility requirements under the CERB Act.

After receiving an initial rejection in 2023, Ms. Higham requested a second review. During this review, she admitted she had continued working one of her three jobs but argued that the pandemic caused her to lose the other two, which significantly impacted her income and ability to support her family. The CRA upheld its original determination in a second decision dated June 25, 2024, maintaining that she had exceeded the income threshold and failed to meet the required 14-day cessation of work due to COVID-19.

Ms. Higham sought judicial review of the CRA’s decision in Federal Court, alleging it was unreasonable, procedurally unfair, and failed to consider her personal hardship. She argued that CERB eligibility criteria were unclear at the time and that the CRA’s communication delays added to her distress. She further requested that the court declare her eligible, reverse the CRA’s debt classification, and remove any penalties.

The Attorney General of Canada, representing the CRA, argued that the decision was reasonable, based on evidence Ms. Higham herself provided, and reached in a procedurally fair manner. The government also pointed out that the CRA is not empowered by legislation to grant CERB eligibility based on fairness or hardship.

Justice Ferron agreed with the Attorney General, ruling that the CRA had properly applied the law and acted fairly throughout the process. The court emphasized that CERB eligibility rules are non-discretionary and do not permit exceptions based on individual financial circumstances. The decision-making process was found to be intelligible, transparent, and justified. Ms. Higham’s additional arguments and evidence introduced during judicial review were dismissed as either inadmissible or irrelevant to the decision’s reasonableness.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review and awarded no costs, acknowledging that Ms. Higham was self-represented and had made professional submissions.