Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review sought over CRA’s denial of CERB and CRB based on income eligibility.

• Applicant claimed $5,000 income threshold was met through EI and caregiver benefits.

• CRA rejected those benefit types as qualifying income under the CERB and CRB legislation.

• Allegations included procedural unfairness and misinformation by CRA agents.

• Court held that the CRA followed fair procedures and applied the law correctly.

• No costs were awarded, and the judicial review application was dismissed.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and procedural history
Arman Younane Khosroabadi, the applicant, received government assistance under two COVID-19 relief programs: the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB). She applied for seven CERB periods between March and September 2020, and twenty-eight CRB periods from September 2020 to October 2021. The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) later reviewed her eligibility and concluded that she had not met the $5,000 income threshold required to qualify for either benefit.

According to CRA findings, Ms. Khosroabadi had received only Employment Insurance (EI) regular and caregiver benefits before applying, which were not considered eligible income under the relevant legislation. CRA issued letters in January 2024 requiring repayment and explaining the denial of benefits. Ms. Khosroabadi challenged this determination, arguing that CRA agents had previously advised her that EI and caregiver benefits were sufficient to qualify. She also submitted various documents to support her position and claimed the review process was unfair and lacked transparency.

Legal reasoning and court analysis
The Federal Court analyzed both the procedural fairness of the CRA’s decision-making and the substance of the eligibility determination. On the legal merits, the Court applied a standard of reasonableness. It concluded that the CRA’s interpretation of the CERB and CRB Acts was consistent with the legislative text, which clearly allowed only specific types of income (such as employment income and parental/maternity EI benefits) to count toward the $5,000 threshold.

The Court dismissed the applicant’s claim that she had a legitimate expectation of eligibility based on prior communications with CRA agents. It emphasized that such expectations do not override statutory requirements. Additionally, the Court found that the CRA’s review was fair and that the applicant had been given multiple opportunities to provide supporting documentation. The Second Reviewer’s notes were detailed and reflected appropriate consideration of the evidence.

Final outcome
The application for judicial review was dismissed. The Court found no significant errors in the CRA’s process or findings. Although the applicant raised concerns about the financial impact on her family, the Court noted that repayment arrangements could be discussed directly with the CRA. Importantly, no costs were awarded, as the Respondent chose not to pursue them.