Background
Rashida Green, a registered dental hygienist, applied for and received benefits under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (CRCB). In April 2024, the Canada Revenue Agency requested documentation to establish her eligibility, including pay stubs, employment records, and bank statements. Ms. Green did not respond to the initial request.
Following a second review request, Ms. Green submitted a letter from the Ontario Dental Hygienists’ Association describing COVID-19’s impact on the profession but still failed to provide the requested documentary evidence despite being given a deadline of October 13, 2025. On October 17, 2025, the CRA determined she was ineligible for CERB (having earned more than $1,000) and CRCB (lacking the required 50% work reduction or cessation of work).
The Court’s Holding
Justice Battista dismissed Ms. Green’s application for judicial review, finding the CRA’s decision reasonable and procedurally fair. The court held that the onus rests on applicants to establish their eligibility for both programs. Because Ms. Green failed to submit the required supporting documents, the CRA reasonably determined she had not met her burden of proof.
The court rejected her claims of procedural unfairness, finding she had received adequate notice of documentary requirements through an April 2024 letter and a September 2025 telephone call that specifically set an October 13 deadline. The court also found the CRA’s reasons—while brief—were sufficiently clear given the record and the absence of the evidence needed to establish eligibility. Finally, the court excluded new evidence Ms. Green attempted to introduce at the judicial review stage, as it was not before the original decision-maker.
Key Takeaways
- Applicants for pandemic relief programs bear the burden of actively submitting documentation to establish eligibility; failure to do so supports a determination of ineligibility.
- Procedural fairness does not require elaborate reasons when an applicant fails to provide required evidence; clear notice and opportunity to respond suffice.
- Evidence not submitted to the decision-maker cannot be introduced for the first time at the judicial review stage absent narrow exceptions (procedural defects, complete absence of evidence, or general background context).
- Both CERB and CRCB have strict eligibility thresholds ($1,000 income cap for CERB; 50% work reduction or cessation for CRCB) that applicants must affirmatively prove.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the principle that applicants for government benefits programs—particularly time-limited emergency programs—must actively compile and submit supporting documentation. The court’s holding that minimal reasons are sufficient when the applicant simply fails to provide required evidence limits opportunities for judicial review based on alleged inadequacy of decision-maker reasoning.
For practitioners advising clients on pandemic relief benefit denials, the case underscores the importance of responding promptly to CRA requests, documenting all deadlines clearly, and understanding that silence or late submission of evidence will result in ineligibility determinations that courts will uphold as reasonable.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.