Background
Lucia Mezzapelle applied for three federal COVID-19 income-support programs: the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), covering March 15 to September 26, 2020; the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB), covering September 27, 2020 to October 9, 2021; and the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit (CWLB), covering December 19, 2021 to January 22, 2022. The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) conducted eligibility reviews for each program and, at both the first and second review levels, determined she did not qualify for any of the benefits. The key threshold requirement common to all three programs — that a claimant must have earned at least $5,000 in employment or self-employment income in the relevant reference periods — was not met.
Mezzapelle had not reported any employment or self-employment income from 2016 through 2021. Her declared income consisted of RRSP withdrawals, dividends, and Quebec/Canada Pension Plan payments. She told CRA agents she had not worked since her cancer diagnosis in 2016, except for two unpaid weeks as an administrative assistant in March 2020. After the first-level reviews, she submitted invoices dated December 1, 2019 (for $10,800) and April 1, 2020 (for $5,300), both addressed to her spouse, and filed amended T1 tax returns for 2019 and 2020 purporting to add “other income” of those amounts. She claimed her spouse was to be paid by a company called “Boomerang,” which would in turn remit the money to her — but she acknowledged to CRA agents that she had never actually received payment for the work, and that an arrangement to be paid had only been reached in early 2023.
The three judicial review applications were consolidated before Justice Duchesne. The CRA’s second-level decisions on the CRB and CWLB were dated May 23, 2023, but Mezzapelle did not file her applications for judicial review until June 28, 2024 — more than thirteen months later, well outside the thirty-day limitation period in s. 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act. The second-level decision on the CERB was dated May 31, 2024, and that application was timely.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Duchesne dismissed all three applications. The CRB and CWLB applications (dockets T-1624-24 and T-1625-24) were dismissed as out of time: filed more than eleven months late, with no extension ever sought or granted. The court noted that the applications had misidentified a May 31, 2024 CRA letter as the decision under review, but the applicant confirmed at the hearing that she was in fact challenging the May 23, 2023 second-review decisions — making the delay undeniable. The court also observed, without deciding on the merits, that those claims would have failed on the substance for the same reasons as the CERB claim.
On the CERB application (docket T-1623-24), the court applied the reasonableness standard of review established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov. It upheld the CRA’s second-level decision as reasonable. The CRA had found that the invoices Mezzapelle submitted after her first-level review were not evidence of income actually received in 2019 or 2020: she herself confirmed she had never been paid, and the amended tax returns reflected “other income” entries — not employment or self-employment income — on line 13000 rather than line 15000 of her return. The court held, consistent with a line of Federal Court authority, that income for CERB eligibility purposes means money actually received, not merely billed or invoiced.
The court also rejected the argument that the CRA had failed to adequately explain its decision. The reviewing officer’s working notes — which form part of the reviewable decision — were found to be exhaustive and clear, demonstrating that the CRA had understood and carefully considered the applicant’s evidence and arguments before concluding she did not meet the statutory definition of a “worker” under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act.
Key Takeaways
- The thirty-day limitation period for judicial review under s. 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act is strictly enforced; applicants who challenge COVID-19 benefit denials more than a month after the second-level decision must obtain a judicial extension or face dismissal regardless of the merits.
- For CERB, CRB, and CWLB eligibility, the $5,000 income threshold requires that money was actually received, not merely invoiced or billed; accounting entries, invoices addressed to a spouse, and late-filed amended tax returns are insufficient without evidence of actual payment to the claimant.
- CRA working notes prepared at both review levels are treated as part of the decision for reasonableness review, and detailed notes documenting the weighing of contradictory evidence will satisfy the transparency and justification requirements of Vavilov.
- A reviewing court will not re-weigh the evidence or substitute its own credibility findings for those of the CRA decision-maker where the record shows the agency engaged meaningfully with the claimant’s submissions.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the strict evidentiary standard that Canadian courts have consistently applied to COVID-19 income-support claims: self-generated documents such as retrospective invoices and amended tax returns do not establish earned income for benefit-eligibility purposes unless accompanied by proof of actual receipt of funds. The ruling adds to a growing body of Federal Court jurisprudence — including Konlambigue, Duchesneau, Des Ruisseaux, and Richard — making clear that the CRA’s approach of requiring cash actually received, rather than amounts billed, is a legally defensible and reasonable interpretation of the relevant statutes.
For practitioners advising clients who received COVID-19 benefit repayment demands, the case is also a reminder of the procedural stakes: the thirty-day judicial review window runs from the date of the second-level CRA decision, not from any subsequent correspondence the agency may send. Missing that window — even by a matter of weeks — forecloses judicial review entirely, absent a timely motion to extend time.