Background
Aly Hindy, a self-represented applicant, sought judicial review of the Canada Revenue Agency’s September 4, 2025 second-review decision confirming that he was ineligible for Canada Emergency Response Benefit payments received between April 12 and September 26, 2020, covering periods 2–7. Hindy had worked as office manager for Tawheed Travel Inc. The CRA concluded that he earned more than $1,000 during the applicable four-week payment periods and, in its second decision, added that he had not demonstrated that he stopped working or had his hours reduced for reasons related to COVID-19.
During the reviews, Hindy supplied employer letters stating that his monthly pay fell from $1,500 before the pandemic to $500 from April through December 2020, with an undated $900 extra payment. He also provided three e-transfer records concerning June, July and August 2021—after the benefits window—and cheques reflecting $1,500 monthly payments from December 2019 through March 2020, before that window. The CRA repeatedly requested pay stubs, invoices, expenses and bank statements for 2020. Its officers found that the materials did not establish when his reported T4 and T4A income was earned, verify his monthly income, or date the additional $900 payment.
On judicial review, Hindy argued that the second reviewing officer failed to account for the evidence, inadequately justified the decision, or applied improper criteria. He also alleged procedural unfairness because he was not given an opportunity to clarify or correct the officer’s concerns. Justice A. Grant identified reasonableness under Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, as the standard for the substantive decision. Procedural fairness was assessed on a standard akin to correctness, focusing on whether Hindy knew and could meaningfully meet the case against him, citing Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Rodas Tejeda, 2026 FCA 115, at paragraphs 38–43.
The Court’s Holding
The Court dismissed the application. It first refused to consider new evidence that had not been before the CRA, notably an April 30, 2020 invoice for $590, because none of the recognized exceptions for new evidence on judicial review applied. On the Court’s own motion, it also amended the style of cause to substitute the Attorney General of Canada for the Canada Revenue Agency as respondent, pursuant to Rules 76 and 303(2) of the Federal Courts Rules.
On the merits, the Court held that Hindy bore the onus of establishing eligibility for each individual period in which he received CERB. Subsection 5(3) of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act also required him to provide information required by the Minister. Although his materials suggested that he was likely eligible for some periods, they did not permit the CRA to determine which periods those were. The absence of financial records from the relevant period meant that his income and the timing of its receipt could not be verified. Showing a likelihood of eligibility for some, or even most, periods was therefore insufficient, and the income-based finding was reasonable.
The Court separately upheld the COVID-related work-stoppage or hours-reduction finding. The employer’s letter did not describe Hindy’s hours during the eligibility window, and no other record documented them. Hindy asked the CRA to infer qualifying reduced hours from his salary decline and the pandemic’s effect on travel. The Court stated that it understood the logic of that position, but that “Logic in legal settings, however, is not necessarily sufficient.” Evidence was required, and the CRA reasonably concluded that the documentation did not establish this criterion. The process was also fair: Hindy had repeatedly been told, by telephone and in writing, what documentation was needed and had opportunities to respond, submit material, ask questions and clarify answers.
Key Takeaways
- CERB recipients challenging ineligibility must establish eligibility for each benefit period, not merely show probable eligibility overall.
- Employer letters and payments dated before or after the benefits window may not establish income timing or COVID-related reduced hours without supporting records from the relevant period.
- The Court excluded new judicial-review evidence, corrected the respondent on its own motion, dismissed the application, and awarded no costs despite the Attorney General’s request.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how period-specific evidentiary gaps can defeat a CERB judicial review even where the Court considers actual eligibility for some periods likely. It also distinguishes the substantive reasonableness analysis from the fairness inquiry and confines its new-evidence and party-designation rulings to the circumstances and rules before it.
Justice Grant expressed sympathy for Hindy and noted the CRA’s statement that it offered solutions tailored to personal circumstances for recipients unable to repay immediately and in full. The Court said it fully expected the CRA to make good on that offer, but its judgment remained dismissal of the application, amendment of the style of cause, and no costs.