Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review concerned a CRA second-review decision denying CERB because the applicant did not establish at least $5,000 in prescribed employment or self-employment income in 2019 or in the twelve months before her first application.

• CRA required corroborating documentation for the applicant’s claimed self-employment income from childcare and personal assistance services provided to her daughter, particularly because she said she was mostly paid in cash.

• The applicant provided letters and a document in her daughter’s name outlining payments totalling $9,800, but no invoices, bank statements, receipts, or other contemporaneous proof, and there were internal inconsistencies in the breakdowns of alleged 2019 payments.

• The Court noted that the CERB Act does not, on its face, exclude non-arm’s length work for family members, but held it was reasonable for the CRA officer to seek reliable, contemporaneous evidence to distinguish paid work from familial support or gifts.

• The applicant had notice of the case to meet and a meaningful opportunity to respond, including written submissions and a telephone call with the second CRA officer, but she stated she had no further proof of self-employment income.

• The Federal Court found the decision reasonable, concluded there was no breach of procedural fairness, dismissed the application for judicial review, and made no order as to costs.

Facts of the case
This proceeding is an application for judicial review of a second-review decision of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) regarding Baheerathy Sriskanda’s eligibility for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). The matter was heard in the Federal Court under Docket T-409-24, with judgment issued on January 28, 2026, by the Honourable Mr. Justice Manson in Ottawa, Ontario. The style of cause is Baheerathy Sriskanda v The Attorney General of Canada. The hearing took place in Toronto, Ontario, on January 22, 2026.
The applicant, who was self-represented, applied for and received CERB payments for periods from March 15, 2020 to September 26, 2020. The CRA later selected her for a CERB eligibility review and requested documents to support her eligibility. In response, she provided written submissions dated April 2, 2023, August 28, 2023, and September 2023.
In those submissions, the applicant described childcare and personal assistance services she said she provided to her daughter, which she stated were paid in cash or by direct deposit. She indicated she did not have documentary proof of that self-employment income. She also submitted a document in her daughter’s name dated August 16, 2023, which set out details and payment amounts attributed to her claimed childcare and personal assistance services totalling $9,800. In her August 28, 2023 letter, she stated that the only income she had in 2019 was from paid childcare services she provided to her daughter.
The applicant asserted that she earned more than $5,000 in 2019 for services provided to her daughter, including childcare, transportation, and personal assistance tasks. However, she did not provide invoices, bank statements, or other contemporaneous proof of received payment.

CRA review process and findings
By a letter dated September 6, 2023, the CRA issued a first review decision finding the applicant ineligible for CERB because she had not shown at least $5,000 of employment or self-employment income in 2019 or in the twelve months before her first application. The CRA advised her that she could request a second review.
The applicant requested this second review by letter dated September 25, 2023. In that letter, she maintained that she qualified based on cash payments received from her daughter and explained that she could not provide further proof of self-employment income because the payments were made in cash, though she re-submitted the documents already provided.
The CRA assigned a different officer (the Second Officer) to conduct the second review. On February 1, 2024, the Second Officer held a telephone call with the applicant and her authorized representative, her spouse. During that call, the applicant and her spouse confirmed that she did not have a business and was babysitting her grandchildren; that she had not previously or since provided babysitting services to anyone but her daughter; that she was not replacing prior care services for her grandchildren; that she did not have a contract; that her business intent and claim of self-employment was just for babysitting her grandchildren; that she was mostly paid in cash and some direct deposits; that her spouse, who prepared her tax returns, did not know why this babysitting income was not claimed and said this was his mistake; and that she had no further proof of self-employment income.
The Second Officer reviewed CRA system information for the applicant’s income and deductions for 2019 to 2021, along with the materials she submitted. The officer’s contemporaneous notes, which form part of the reasons, identified what was reviewed and explained why the applicant’s materials did not establish her eligibility.

Policy and statutory framework for CERB eligibility
The Court set out the statutory framework under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act, SC 2020, c 5, s 8 (CERB Act). Under sections 2 and 6, to be eligible for CERB an applicant must have had at least $5,000 of prescribed income in 2019 or in the 12 months before the application. The definition of “worker” in section 2 requires at least $5,000 of total income from prescribed sources, which include employment and self-employment income.
Section 10 of the CERB Act authorizes the Minister to require information to verify an applicant’s eligibility, and subsection 5(3) states that a CERB applicant is responsible for providing any information the Minister requires of them in respect of their application.
The CERB Act does not prescribe internal CRA review procedures. The record showed that the CRA adopted a two-step administrative process consisting of an initial eligibility review followed by a second review by a different CRA officer if requested within 30 days. CRA procedures and guidance assist officers in assessing whether an applicant meets the eligibility requirements. The Second Officer relied on such guidance when requiring documents corroborating payment for claimed self-employment income, given that the applicant said she was working for a family member as a self-employed person.

Evidence assessment and alleged income from childcare services
The decision turned on the income requirement in the CERB Act. The applicant argued that the Second Officer did not consider her 2019 Notice of Assessment. The Court noted that an income tax assessment is based on self-reported information and that the Second Officer could require corroborative documentation to support declared income, referring to Walker v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 381, and Aryan v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 139. While the applicant’s 2019 Notice of Assessment was not before the Second Officer at the time of the second review, the officer considered the underlying income information in the CRA system for 2019. That system information showed that the applicant’s reported 2019 income consisted of Canada Pension Plan income, interest and investment income, net rental income, and Registered Retirement Savings Plan income, none of which are prescribed sources of income for CERB eligibility.
The applicant’s primary position was that she earned at least $5,000 through work performed for her daughter in 2019 and that the non-arm’s length nature of the relationship should not matter. The Court observed that the CERB Act does not, on its face, exclude non-arm’s length employment or self-employment services provided to a family member. However, the Act requires the decision-maker to determine whether the applicant earned at least $5,000 of qualifying income. The Court held it was reasonable for the Second Officer to seek reliable, contemporaneous evidence to distinguish paid work from familial support or gifts, particularly where the applicant said she was paid in cash and submitted no corresponding invoices, bank records, or other proof of payment.
The applicant pointed to difficulties in proving non-arm’s length transactions and asked the Court to accept her account in the absence of contrary evidence. The Court held that this submission did not show a reviewable error in the decision. The respondent highlighted discrepancies noted by the Second Officer between the applicant’s April 2, 2023 letter and the August 16, 2023 document in her daughter’s name regarding amounts allegedly received for assisting with administrative tasks in November and December 2019. On this conflicting record, it was open to the Second Officer to require additional information to corroborate the claimed self-employment income.
The Court emphasized that the onus rested on the applicant to establish eligibility and that it was reasonable for the Second Officer to request corroborating documentation where the claimed qualifying income was said to be paid in cash, citing Singh v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 51, and Zhang v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1761.

Reasonableness of the CRA’s second-review decision
The applicable standard of review for the Second Officer’s substantive findings was reasonableness, following Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. The Court noted that the decision letter dated February 20, 2024, was brief, but held that brevity alone did not make the decision unreasonable. The question was whether the decision, read with the Second Officer’s notes (which form part of the reasons, as recognized in Crook v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 1670), allowed the Court to understand why the officer reached the outcome and whether the decision was responsive to the key constraints identified in Vavilov.
The Court found that this standard was met. The applicant did not meet her burden to show that the Second Officer’s decision was unreasonable so as to justify the Court’s intervention. The reasons were described as transparent and intelligible, and the decision was found to be justified in relation to the record before the Second Officer and the eligibility requirements set out in the CERB Act.

Procedural fairness
On the procedural fairness issue, the Court held that fairness required that the applicant receive notice of the case to meet and an opportunity to respond by providing information to substantiate her claim that she qualified for CERB.
The Court concluded that the applicant had a meaningful opportunity to support her eligibility. The CRA’s second review process gave her an initial opportunity to submit further documentation, and she participated in a telephone call with the Second Officer during the review. The Second Officer asked for additional documentation to corroborate her claimed qualifying income, but the applicant stated that she did not have any such documents and did not provide invoices, receipts, bank deposits, records of hours worked, or other independent evidence.
The Court therefore found that the applicant had not shown that the process deprived her of a meaningful right to be heard or to know the case to meet, and it found no breach of procedural fairness.

Overall ruling and outcome of the case
In conclusion, the Court held that the CRA’s decision was reasonable and that there was no breach of procedural fairness. The application for judicial review was dismissed. The Court made no order as to costs.