Executive summary: key legal and evidentiary issues

• Pauline Ménard, a self-represented applicant, sought judicial review of two CRA decisions dated July 10, 2025, denying her eligibility for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB/PCU) and the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB/PCRE).

• Central to the dispute was the statutory requirement that applicants must have earned at least $5,000 (before taxes) in employment or self-employment income in 2019, 2020, or the 12 months prior to their first application.

• All supporting documents submitted by Ms. Ménard — including T4As for 2019 and 2020, bank accounts, client invoices, payment receipts, and cheque copies — were in the name of her incorporated company, Distribution Lavallée Ménard Inc., rather than in her personal name.

• A revised T5 slip declaring dividends for 2019 was produced only in May 2025, after the decisions rendered following the second review, and those dividends were never reported on Ms. Ménard's personal 2019 tax return.

• The Court applied the reasonableness standard of review established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, requiring the applicant to demonstrate that the administrative decision was not transparent, intelligible, and justified.

• Burden of proof rested on the applicant to establish eligibility on a balance of probabilities, a burden the Court found she failed to discharge both before the CRA and on judicial review.

Background and facts of the case
Pauline Ménard was the owner of Distribution Lavallée Ménard Inc., a forestry company. During the COVID-19 pandemic, between March 15, 2020 and September 26, 2020, Ms. Ménard applied for and received CERB (PCU) payments covering seven periods, for a total of $14,000. Subsequently, between September 27, 2020 and October 9, 2021, she applied for and received CRB (PCRE) payments for twenty-seven periods, for a total of $24,600.
The CRA review process
On November 10, 2023, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) informed Ms. Ménard that her account had been selected for a first review of her CERB and CRB claims and requested that she provide supporting documentation attesting to her eligibility. Ms. Ménard did not respond, and on March 26, 2024, the CRA agent conducting the first review determined she was not eligible for either the CERB or the CRB and sent her a letter to that effect. In May 2024, following an exchange between Ms. Ménard and the CRA agent, the file was re-examined. On June 12, 2024, the CRA agent asked Ms. Ménard to submit her invoices and bank statements from March 2019 to September 2020. By letter dated June 18, 2024, the CRA agent informed her that she was not eligible for either the CERB or the CRB because she had not earned at least $5,000 (before taxes) in employment or self-employment income in 2019, in 2020, or during the 12 months preceding the date of her first application. Ms. Ménard requested a further review on July 31, 2024. On July 10, 2025, the CRA once again decided that Ms. Ménard was not eligible for either the CERB or the CRB.
The eligibility criteria at issue
The Loi sur la prestation canadienne d'urgence (Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act), SC 2020, c 5, s 8, and the Loi sur les prestations canadiennes de relance économique (Canada Recovery Benefits Act), SC 2020, c 12, both required applicants to demonstrate that they had earned at least $5,000 in employment income or net self-employment income during the relevant reference period — either in 2019, in 2020, or in the 12 months preceding the date of their first claim. These criteria were cumulative; failure to meet any one of them rendered the applicant ineligible. Only income from certain sources was counted for the purposes of the calculation — essentially income from professional activity, hence the CRA's use of the expression "employment income or net self-employment income" in its decisions. CRA guidelines titled Confirmation of Eligibility for CERB, CRB, CRSB and CRCB stipulated that where 2019 or 2020 income could not be validated, proof had to be provided. The guidelines also contained a list of documents that could constitute acceptable proof of income as a self-employed worker, including invoices for services rendered, a payment receipt (a bank statement or a bill of sale showing a payment and the remaining balance), documents indicating income, contracts, a list of expenses justifying net earnings, and any other document that could substantiate $5,000 in self-employment income.
The evidentiary shortcomings
Ms. Ménard's position before the CRA was that, as the owner of Distribution Lavallée Ménard Inc., she compensated herself not through a salary but through personal credit card expenses paid by the company. However, the CRA agent's internal notes — which form an integral part of the decision — identified several critical evidentiary gaps: Ms. Ménard provided no document validating $5,000 in employment or self-employment income for 2019 or 2020; all documents she supplied — the T4As for 2019 and 2020, bank accounts, client invoices, payment receipts, and cheque copies — were in the name of Distribution Lavallée Ménard Inc. and not in her own name; the T5 for 2019, although identified in Ms. Ménard's name, was not declared on her 2019 tax return and was produced late, in May 2025; the credit card payments she considered as salary did not appear as employment income on her 2019 tax return; and the income she derived from her incorporated business did not appear on her 2019 tax return. Ms. Ménard highlighted that on May 25, 2025, she submitted a T5 slip to the CRA reporting a dividend payment for the 2019 tax year. However, as noted by the Attorney General of Canada, this T5 was issued only in May 2025, after the decisions rendered following the second review, and the dividend amount had not been declared by Ms. Ménard on her 2019 tax return.
The standard of review and the Court's analysis
The Federal Court, presided over by Acting Chief Justice Martine St-Louis, applied the reasonableness standard of review as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Vavilov. Under this standard, the reviewing court examines whether the administrative decision is based on an inherently coherent and rational analysis and whether it is justified in light of the legal and factual constraints to which the decision-maker is subject. The Court also considers the result of the administrative decision in light of the underlying reasoning to ensure that the decision as a whole is transparent, intelligible, and justified. The Court would not intervene on the basis of merely superficial or ancillary errors; rather, the applicant bore the burden of demonstrating that the decision suffered from serious shortcomings to such a degree that it could not be said to meet the requirements of justification, intelligibility, and transparency. The Court found that the CRA agents' notes clearly indicated that the documents submitted by Ms. Ménard had been considered in the analysis of her file. The Court also noted that opportunities to present additional information had been offered to Ms. Ménard. For instance, on April 22, 2025, the agent in charge of the re-examination indicated that the plan of action was to contact Ms. Ménard not only to discuss the grounds for refusal, but also to ask her what income she had used to consider that she met the $5,000 criterion. The agent also noted that the purpose of the call was to inform Ms. Ménard that company revenues are not considered in the eligibility analysis unless accompanied by proof of income paid in the form of dividends, salary, or self-employment income. Regarding the belatedly filed T5, the Court cited established jurisprudence holding that the CRA is not required to take into account such modifications if it believes they are inaccurate or made solely for the purpose of satisfying the eligibility criteria. In the absence of income slips showing that Ms. Ménard had in fact received a salary from her company, the CRA was entitled to ask her to provide documents or additional information to prove her eligibility. The Court concluded that the reasoning that led the CRA agent to determine that Ms. Ménard was not eligible for the benefits was transparent, intelligible, intrinsically coherent, and justified in light of the evidence that had been submitted to the agent.
Ruling and outcome
The Federal Court dismissed Ms. Ménard's application for judicial review, finding that she had not demonstrated, as her burden required, that the CRA's decisions were unreasonable in light of the facts and the law. The successful party was the Attorney General of Canada (the defendant). Although the Attorney General requested that the application be dismissed with costs, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, determined that there was no reason to order Ms. Ménard, who was self-represented, to pay costs. Accordingly, no costs were awarded. No specific monetary amount was ordered in favour of either party in this judgment.