Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review challenged the CRA’s denial of CERB benefits to a frontline healthcare worker.

• The Applicant’s T4 income exceeded the $1000 threshold for each CERB period, disqualifying her.

• Eligibility was assessed under the CERB Act and its regulations, including permissible income rules.

• The standard of review applied was reasonableness, as per Vavilov.

• Court found no reviewable error in the CRA’s decision-making process.

• Despite sympathy for the Applicant, the Court dismissed the application with no costs awarded.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and context
Stennette Johnson, a personal support worker, held both full-time and part-time jobs before the COVID-19 pandemic. Government-imposed health restrictions in 2020 barred healthcare workers from working in multiple facilities, forcing her to leave her part-time job. In response to the income loss, she applied for and received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) for seven four-week payment periods between March and September 2020.

In 2022, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) initiated a review of her CERB eligibility and informed her that recipients were disqualified from the benefit if they earned more than $1000 in any given four-week period. Ms. Johnson submitted documents showing her income for 2020, but the CRA determined she earned above the threshold in every relevant period. A Second Level Review reaffirmed the decision based on her T4 slips and bi-weekly full-time wages. Ms. Johnson then sought judicial review in Federal Court, claiming the CRA failed to consider her circumstances fully.

Judicial review decision
The Federal Court applied the reasonableness standard under the Vavilov framework and concluded the CRA’s decision was justified and procedurally sound. The Court noted that Ms. Johnson’s own tax filings showed she earned $69,845 in 2020, including over $12,000 from her part-time position. She acknowledged receiving bi-weekly full-time pay during the applicable periods, which clearly placed her over the $1000 limit defined in the CERB Act and its regulations.

Although the judge expressed sympathy for her situation—particularly her frontline service and good faith belief in her eligibility—the Court held that personal hardship could not override the statutory requirements. The application was dismissed.

Costs and remedy
Both parties requested costs, but the Court declined to award any. The judge recognized Ms. Johnson was self-represented and acted in good faith by bringing the matter forward to clarify her rights. No damages were awarded, as the case was not a civil action but a judicial review of administrative action. The final judgment dismissed the application without costs and corrected the style of cause to list the Attorney General of Canada, not the CRA, as the proper respondent.