Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Treatment of the applicant’s 2019 T4A Box 105 “fellowship” amount as non-qualifying (scholarship/bursary-type) income rather than employment or self-employment income toward the $5,000 CERB threshold.

• Finding that the applicant did not stop working or have her hours reduced for reasons related to COVID-19 because she was not working prior to the pandemic and only began working in June 2020.

• Application of the CRB 50% income-reduction test using the applicant’s 2019 and 2020 T4 employment income to calculate bi-weekly averages and compare them to her Brock University earnings in each disputed CRB period.

• Exclusion on judicial review of additional 2019 income and banking documents that were not before the CRA decision-maker and did not meet any recognized exception to the general rule on admissibility.

• Reliance on CRA’s internal T1Case notes and guidelines (including the “Confirming Covid-19 benefits eligibility” procedure) as part of the reasons, supporting the conclusion that the second review decision was reasonable.

• Conclusion that procedural fairness obligations were met because the applicant was informed of the case to meet, given multiple opportunities to provide documents, and stated she had no further documents before the second review was completed.

Facts of the case

The applicant, Zahra Farahnak, sought judicial review of a decision of a Canada Emergency Benefits Validation Agent of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) dismissing a second review of her applications for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act, SC 2020, c 5, s 8, and the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) under the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020, c 12, s 2.
She had applied for and received the CERB for four consecutive periods from March 15, 2020, to July 4, 2020, and the CRB for 24 consecutive periods from November 22, 2020, to October 23, 2021.
By letter dated April 26, 2024, the CRA advised the applicant that a review was being conducted to verify her eligibility for CERB and CRB. The letter described the eligibility requirements for both benefits and requested documents such as pay stubs, records of employment (ROEs), letters from employers confirming work stoppage or reduced work due to COVID-19, and bank statements. In a June 1, 2024 letter, the applicant responded with additional information and attached four letters from Brock University dated June 5, 2020, September 3, 2020, November 11, 2020, and July 12, 2021, as well as an RBC statement showing transactions between March 1, 2020, and October 31, 2021.
On August 29, 2024, the applicant spoke by phone with the first reviewing CRA agent. On September 2, 2024, she submitted another letter attaching the same RBC statement (with Brock University deposits circled) and three ROEs from Brock University.
By letter dated October 11, 2024, the CRA advised her of the first review decision that she was not eligible for the CERB and not eligible for the CRB for the periods from December 20, 2020, to May 8, 2021 (periods 7–16) and August 29, 2021, to October 23, 2021 (periods 25–28). On November 8, 2024, she requested a second review and provided additional information, attaching the same three ROEs and four letters from Brock University, as well as her 2019 T4 and T4A and her 2020 T4.
The second reviewing Agent spoke with the applicant by phone on August 6, 2025, and asked if there were any additional documents she wanted to submit. The applicant indicated there were not and that the review could be completed based on the documents already submitted. By letter dated August 25, 2025, the Agent advised that the second review had determined that the applicant was ineligible for the CERB and the CRB. This second review decision was the subject of the judicial review.

Decision under review and CRA’s internal notes

The August 25, 2025 second review decision letter stated that CRA had completed its review and considered all available information. It concluded that the applicant was not eligible for the CERB because: (1) she did not earn at least $5,000 (before taxes) of employment and/or self-employment income in 2019 or in the 12 months before the date of her application; and (2) she did not stop working or have her hours reduced for reasons related to COVID-19. It further concluded that she was not eligible for the CRB because she did not have a 50% reduction in her average weekly income compared to the previous year due to COVID-19.
The Certified Tribunal Record included internal CRA notes: “Screen captures from the CRA’s T1Case case specific notes relevant to the Canada Emergency Benefits for the applicant.” The Court treated these internal notes as part of the reasons for decision, consistent with prior case law cited in the judgment.
In an entry dated August 21, 2025, the Agent recorded the decision and reasons. The Agent stated that the applicant would be deemed ineligible for CERB periods 1 to 4 because she did not stop working or have her hours reduced for reasons related to COVID-19, and because she did not earn at least $5,000 of employment and/or self-employment income in 2019 or in the 12 months before the date of her CERB application. The Agent also recorded that the applicant would be deemed ineligible for CRB periods 7 to 16 and 25 to 28 because she did not have a 50% reduction in average weekly income compared to the previous year due to COVID-19.
The notes further recorded that, during a phone conversation on August 15, 2025, the applicant advised that she worked as a research assistant, starting on June 1, 2020, on part-time contracts Monday to Friday; that she was not working prior to the pandemic and did not work until June 2020; that she did not earn $5,000 of employment and/or self-employment income in 2019 or in the 12 months before the CERB application; and that her work was not impacted due to COVID-19 because she did not work until June 2020. The notes concluded that she was not eligible for CERB periods 1 to 4 and that she did not have a 50% reduction in income compared to the 2019 or 2020 tax years, making her ineligible for CRB periods 7 to 16 and 25 to 28.

Statutory framework and key policy/guideline terms

The Court stated that, under subsection 5(3) of the CERB Act, an applicant must provide the Minister with any information the Minister may require in respect of the application. It also cited case law holding that, for COVID-19 benefits, the onus is on applicants to inform themselves of the eligibility criteria for each benefit and to prove that those criteria have been met.
Under paragraph 6(1)(a) of the CERB Act, to be eligible for CERB, a worker must cease working for reasons related to COVID-19 for at least 14 consecutive days within the period they apply. Paragraph 6(1)(b) requires that, during those consecutive days, the worker must not receive more than $1,000 of income from employment or self-employment, certain listed benefits, or other prescribed income.
Section 2 of the CERB Act defines a “worker” as a person at least 15 years of age, resident in Canada, who for 2019 or in the 12-month period preceding the application date has a total income of at least $5,000 from the following sources: (a) employment; (b) self-employment; (c) certain Employment Insurance benefits; and (d) certain provincial pregnancy or parental benefits.
For CRB, paragraph 3(1)(f) of the CRB Act provides that a person is eligible for CRB for any two-week period between September 27, 2020, and October 23, 2021 if, for reasons related to COVID-19, they were not employed or self-employed or had a reduction of at least 50% in their average weekly employment or self-employment income for the two-week period compared to specific prior-year reference periods (2019 or the previous 12 months for 2020 periods; and 2019, 2020, or the previous 12 months for 2021 periods).
The CRA used a document titled “Confirming Covid-19 benefits eligibility,” described in the Turner Affidavit as a “Procedure document that instructs CRA agents on how to determine eligibility for CEB.” It listed ineligible sources of income, including “Students’ loans, bursaries or scholarships.” It gave as an example “Box 105 of T4A slip: Artist projects grants,” and stated that “Scholarships, bursaries and artists project grants are all reported on box 105 of the T4A and these amounts are generally considered as ‘other income’ and aren’t eligible for the covid-19 benefits.”
The Turner Affidavit stated that the April 26, 2024 CRA letter explained the eligible and ineligible types of employment or self-employment income and the required documentation, and that the letter stated: “[p]ensions, student loans and bursaries are not employment income and therefore, should not be included in the $1,000.”

Evidence about the applicant’s income and work situation

The Certified Tribunal Record included the applicant’s 2019 T4 slip showing employment income of $1,952.44 from McGill University and tax deducted of $139.86. It also included her 2019 T4A slip showing an amount of $32,538.60 in Box 105 under “Other Information” from the Montreal Heart Institute, with income tax deducted of $2,858.98. A CRA “Income and Deductions” screen showed T4 earnings of $1,952 and an amount under “taxbl sch fell burs art grant” of $32,038, for a total income of $33,990 and taxable income of $33,953, with tax payable of $1,206.22, tax deducted of $2,998.84 and a resulting refund of $2,015.93.
The CRA T1Case Screen Captures included an entry dated August 6, 2025: “Action Plan: … Discuss income reported on 2019 (BR is advising its for employment but T4A has it listed as a scholarship) Explain criteria.” Another entry summarized the 2019 T1 return income as “T4 – $1,952” and “Grant – $32,038.”
In her June 1, 2024 letter, the applicant wrote that, at the onset of the pandemic, she was actively seeking employment and was jobless when COVID-19 struck. She stated that in June 2020 she found a remote position as a research associate at Brock University and worked there until November 2020 on two contracts from June 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020 and from September 2, 2020 to October 31, 2020. In subsequent letters of September 2, 2024 and November 8, 2024, she reiterated that from January 2020 to June 2020 she was unemployed and had no income.
The CRA T1Case Screen Captures for the August 15, 2025 phone call recorded that she confirmed she had not worked in 2020 until June 2020.

Admissibility of new evidence filed on judicial review

In support of her application for leave and judicial review, the applicant filed an affidavit dated September 16, 2025, with three exhibits. Exhibit A attached the August 25, 2025 second review decision letter. Exhibit B attached a CRA Notice of Assessment dated April 15, 2020; a statement of remuneration and deduction from the Montreal Heart Institute for specified 2019 periods; and a “Postdoctoral Fellow Acceptance Form” and extension from the University of Montreal for periods in 2019 and early 2020. Exhibit C attached Scotiabank statements from January 27, 2019, to September 26, 2019, including payroll deposits from the Montreal Heart Institute.
The Turner Affidavit (for the respondent) stated that the documents in Exhibits B and C of the applicant’s affidavit were not before the Agent at the time of the second review decision.
The Court summarized the general rule that the evidentiary record on judicial review is restricted to what was before the administrative decision-maker and outlined three recognized exceptions: (i) affidavits providing general background that might assist the Court without going to the merits; (ii) affidavits bringing to light procedural defects not found in the administrative record; and (iii) affidavits highlighting a complete absence of evidence before the decision-maker for a particular finding.
The Court noted that the Certified Tribunal Record already included some information on the applicant’s 2019 income (the 2019 T4, 2019 T4A, and Income and Deductions screen). It found that Exhibits B and C were financial and employment documents relating directly to 2019 income that went to the merits of the decision, were not related to a procedural defect, and did not show a complete lack of evidence before the decision-maker. The Court therefore held that Exhibits B and C did not fall within any exception and agreed with the respondent that they were inadmissible because they were not before the Agent when the second review decision was made.

Reasonableness of the CERB findings

On the $5,000 income requirement, the Court identified the central question as whether the $32,538.60 in Box 105 of the applicant’s 2019 T4A was employment or self-employment income for CERB purposes, and, given that, whether it was unreasonable for the Agent to conclude that she did not earn $5,000 of employment and/or self-employment income in 2019.
The Court examined the “Confirming Covid-19 benefits eligibility” guidelines, which listed ineligible sources of income including “Students’ loans, bursaries or scholarships” and gave “Box 105 of T4A slip: Artist projects grants” as an example, stating that such amounts are generally considered “other income” and not eligible for the COVID-19 benefits. It also noted that, among the boxes filled in on the applicant’s T4 and T4A, only Box 14 of the T4 was listed in the guidelines as an eligible source of income (though they stated the list was not exhaustive), and that Box 105 was not listed as eligible but was discussed under ineligible income.
The CRA notes showed that the Agent considered this issue, including the entry stating the applicant was advising the income was employment while the T4A listed it as a scholarship, and the entry recording 2019 income as “T4 – $1,952” and “Grant – $32,038.” Based on that information, the Court held that it was reasonable for the Agent to find that the Montreal Heart Institute amount was not employment or self-employment income for CERB purposes and that only the $1,952 employment income from McGill University counted toward the $5,000 threshold, which was insufficient.
The Court concluded that the Agent did not fail to engage with the documents submitted, pointing to the T1Case notes as evidence that the Agent considered the applicant’s various income sources. It found that the documents submitted did not establish that the fellowship was eligible income or that she had sufficient eligible income to qualify, and that it was therefore reasonable to conclude she did not meet the $5,000 eligible income requirement for 2019.
The Court also observed that, when appearing before it, the applicant argued that her post-doctorate contract demonstrated that she performed “real work” and thus earned eligible income, but she had not provided that contract to CRA. Even in her affidavit, she did not explain what work she did or how it related to the fellowship payments. The Court stated that it was possible CRA might have accepted the fellowship as eligible income had she submitted her contract and related documents, but that she failed to meet her onus of providing necessary documents and there was no evidence she had requested, and been refused, an extension of time to obtain them.

On the requirement to cease working or have hours reduced for reasons related to COVID-19, the Court referred to the applicant’s own letters (June 1, 2024; September 2, 2024; November 8, 2024) stating that she was unemployed and had no income from January 2020 to June 2020 and that she began work at Brock University in June 2020. CRA’s notes recorded that she confirmed she had not been working prior to the pandemic and did not work in 2020 until June 2020, and that the Agent had discussed the CERB criteria with her.
The Court noted that the applicant received CERB from March 15, 2020, to July 4, 2020, and was not employed when COVID-19 hit. It concluded that she did not cease working due to COVID-19 and that it was therefore reasonable for the Agent to find she was not eligible for CERB, as she did not cease working for reasons related to COVID-19 during the period in which she received CERB and submitted no documentation to CRA to support a different conclusion.

Reasonableness of the CRB findings

The Court summarized paragraph 3(1)(f) of the CRB Act and noted that the applicant received CRB for periods 5 to 28 from November 22, 2020, to October 23, 2021, but was found ineligible for CRB for periods 7–16 and 25–28. It recorded that the CRA guidelines stated CRB applicants must validate that they meet the 50% reduction criteria for every period they apply.
The CRA T1Case Screen Captures showed the Agent’s calculations of bi-weekly income for 2019 and 2020: for 2019, total annual income of $1,952, bi-weekly income of $75.08 and 50% of that bi-weekly income of $37.54; for 2020, total annual income of $21,746, bi-weekly income of $836.38 and 50% of that bi-weekly income of $418.19. The Court noted that these amounts were consistent with the applicant’s T4 slips.
The Court explained that, to meet the 50% reduction criteria, for period 7 (a 2020 period) the applicant would need to show bi-weekly income of no more than $37.54, and for periods 8–16 and 25–28 she would need bi-weekly income of no more than $418.19. CRA calculated that she earned $669.73 for periods 7–15; $669.70 for period 16; $697.91 for period 25; and $751.59 for periods 26–28. The Court stated that these calculations were consistent with the three ROEs from Brock University that she had submitted.
The T1Case notes showed a breakdown of the amounts she received from Brock University bi-weekly, listed by time period for the weeks covered by the ROEs, and indicated that for each of the periods in which she was found ineligible she had earned more than her average bi-weekly income in 2019 and 2020.
An August 21, 2025 entry in the T1Case notes reiterated the decision deeming her ineligible for CRB periods 7–16 and 25–28 because she did not have a 50% reduction in average weekly income compared to the previous year due to COVID-19, and stated as a reason that she did not have a 50% reduction in income compared to the 2019 or 2020 tax years.
The Court concluded that, based on the evidence before the Agent, the decision that the applicant’s income was not reduced by 50% as defined in the CRB Act was reasonable.

Procedural fairness

The Court cited prior authority for the proposition that, for CERB and CRB applications, the level of procedural fairness owed is on the low end of the spectrum, and that in this context procedural fairness requires that the applicant receive notice of the case to meet and an opportunity to respond by providing information to substantiate eligibility.
The record showed that the applicant was informed by the April 26, 2024 letter that her applications were under review and was told what documents she should submit to support her eligibility. She submitted additional documents on June 2, 2024 and spoke to an agent on August 29, 2024. She provided more documents on September 2, 2024, and was advised on October 11, 2024 that she was not eligible for CERB and CRB for certain periods. She requested a second review on November 8, 2024 and attached additional documents. The August 6, 2025 CRA note stated that when the Agent asked whether she had any additional documents she wanted to provide, she advised that she did not and that the Agent could complete the review with the documents already provided.
The Court noted that the applicant did not provide the documents now attached as Exhibits B and C to her affidavit during the administrative process. It concluded that she had notice of the case to meet and an opportunity to respond and that the evidence she submitted was considered. The Court held that there was no breach of the duty of procedural fairness owed.

Outcome and result

The Court concluded that, given the documents submitted by the applicant, it was reasonable for the Agent to determine that she had not made $5,000 of eligible income in 2019, had not ceased working due to COVID-19, and was therefore not eligible for CERB. It also held that it was reasonable for the Agent to determine that she did not have a 50% reduction in income for CRB periods 7–16 and 25–28 and was therefore not eligible for CRB during those periods. The Court further concluded that the process was procedurally fair.
Accordingly, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, was therefore successful. The Court ordered that there would be no order as to costs. No monetary amount was awarded in favour of the successful party, and the decision does not specify any sum ordered in that party’s favour, so the total amount, if any, cannot be determined from this judgment.