Background
Mojtaba Ahmadi, a self-represented applicant, applied for and received Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) payments for periods between March 15 and September 26, 2020. The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) subsequently conducted an eligibility validation review, requesting documentation of income on multiple occasions beginning in March 2023. In response, Ahmadi provided two undated and unsigned service agreements — one for $2,900 referencing a 2019 client and one for $3,000 referencing a 2020 client — along with TD bank statements covering October 2019 to March 2020.
The CRA issued a first-review decision in January 2025 finding Ahmadi ineligible for CERB because he had not demonstrated the statutory minimum of $5,000 in employment or self-employment income in 2019 or in the 12 months preceding his application. Ahmadi sought a second review, and a different CRA officer was assigned. That officer reviewed all prior submissions, CRA system records showing declared income of $3,000 in 2019 and $2,900 in 2020, and conducted a telephone interview with Ahmadi on September 4, 2025. During the call, Ahmadi confirmed his tax filings were accurate, described his work as informal odd jobs for family and neighbours, acknowledged he was not licensed and did not advertise, and stated he had no further documents to provide.
The second-review decision, issued September 8, 2025, found Ahmadi ineligible for CERB (as well as CRB and CRCB) on the basis that he had not established the required $5,000 income threshold. Ahmadi sought judicial review of the CERB determination before the Federal Court, arguing the decision was unreasonable and that the CRA breached procedural fairness.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Manson dismissed the application. On procedural fairness, the Court found no breach. Applying the principle that fairness obligations in COVID-benefit validation decisions sit at the low end of the spectrum, the Court held that Ahmadi had adequate notice of the case to meet — the CRA’s correspondence had repeatedly identified the income-documentation requirement — and a meaningful opportunity to respond, including through written submissions and a direct telephone interview before the decision was issued. The Court noted the statutory scheme placed the burden on the applicant to provide the required information, and Ahmadi himself confirmed he had nothing further to submit.
On reasonableness, the Court applied the Vavilov standard and upheld the second officer’s decision. The officer’s contemporaneous notes — which form part of the reasons — disclosed a rational reasoning path: the submitted service agreements were unsigned and undated, the totals in the agreements did not reconcile with the bank deposits or with Ahmadi’s declared tax income, and the bank statements alone did not establish that deposits constituted qualifying income. The Court noted specific discrepancies, including that the amounts in the 2019 and 2020 service agreements were transposed relative to what Ahmadi declared in those years, and that the 2020 deposits did not correspond to the services described in the 2020 agreement.
The Court also rejected Ahmadi’s argument that the CRA had applied the eligibility rule too rigidly. The $5,000 income threshold is a statutory condition of eligibility under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act, not a discretionary guideline, and the officer had no authority to waive it. The decision was found to be transparent, intelligible, and justified.
Key Takeaways
- CERB applicants bear the statutory burden of establishing qualifying income of at least $5,000; informal or undocumented work arrangements do not satisfy that burden absent reliable corroborating evidence.
- Procedural fairness in COVID-benefit validation proceedings is at the low end of the spectrum — notice of the income-documentation requirement and an opportunity to respond (including by phone interview) is sufficient; the CRA is not obliged to proactively solicit clarification on an applicant’s behalf.
- A CRA officer’s contemporaneous case notes form part of the reasons for the decision and will be read together with any decision letter when assessing reasonableness on judicial review.
- The $5,000 CERB income threshold is a mandatory statutory condition; officers have no discretion to waive it on equitable or informal-work grounds.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the evidentiary standard applicants must meet in ongoing CERB eligibility disputes — a category of litigation that continues to generate significant Federal Court caseload years after the pandemic. The Court’s confirmation that informal, cash-based work arrangements require reliable, internally consistent documentation to satisfy the statutory income threshold will be instructive for practitioners advising clients facing CERB repayment demands, particularly gig or informal-economy workers whose income records are sparse.
The ruling also provides useful guidance on the scope of procedural fairness in administrative benefit reviews more broadly. By affirming that a telephone interview combined with multiple written opportunities to submit documents satisfies the duty of fairness at the lower end of the spectrum, the Court signals that the CRA’s two-step validation process is procedurally sound without requiring officers to act as advocates for applicants in assembling their evidentiary record.