Mirabedini v. Canada (AG) — Federal Court upholds CRA’s denial of CERB payments where applicant exceeded income threshold

The Court’s Holding

The Federal Court dismissed Ms. Mirabedini’s application, finding both that the decision was reasonable and that procedural fairness was respected. Justice Saint-Fleur held that the CRA officer properly calculated Ms. Mirabedini’s income by prorating her gross income over the CERB periods, a methodology supported by case law and CRA guidelines, because her pay stubs did not align with CERB period dates. The officer documented this analysis in detailed case notes and considered all documents provided by the applicant, including her submissions addressing lag payments and income misallocation.

On reasonableness, the Court emphasized that absent exceptional circumstances, reviewing courts owe significant deference to first-instance decision-makers’ evaluation of evidence. Ms. Mirabedini bore the burden of establishing that the decision was unreasonable through concrete evidence, which she failed to do. The Court found her submissions amounted to disagreement with how the evidence was appreciated rather than proof that the calculations were flawed. Regarding procedural fairness, the Court found Ms. Mirabedini had ample opportunity to know the case against her and respond through multiple submissions and phone conversations with the CRA officer. The CERB eligibility criteria are cumulative: both the income test and the COVID-19 work-stoppage requirement must be satisfied, and the Court found the officer reasonably concluded both were unmet.

Key Takeaways

• Judicial review of CERB ineligibility decisions involves a high bar: applicants must present concrete evidence that income calculations were unreasonable, not merely disagree with how the CRA weighed evidence.
• Prorating gross income over benefit periods when pay stubs do not align with CERB period dates is an accepted methodology that courts will uphold if reasonably applied.
• Procedural fairness requires notice and genuine opportunity to respond; it does not require the CRA to adopt the applicant’s preferred calculation method or collaborate on a favored approach.
• The requirement that work stoppage be “for reasons related to COVID-19” is narrowly construed; mere reduction of hours due to unrelated health conditions does not satisfy this criterion.
• CRA officers’ findings on credibility and evidence evaluation are owed deference on judicial review absent exceptional circumstances.

Why It Matters

This decision provides important guidance on the standard of review for CERB eligibility disputes in the post-pandemic era. It establishes that the CRA’s methodologies for calculating eligibility—specifically, prorating income when pay periods misalign with benefit periods—are entitled to deference and will generally withstand judicial review scrutiny. The decision raises the evidentiary bar for applicants challenging ineligibility determinations, signaling that disagreement with the CRA’s evidence assessment is insufficient to overturn a decision; appellants must demonstrate concrete, affirmative evidence of unreasonableness.

For CERB applicants and their counsel, the ruling underscores the importance of submitting detailed, documentary evidence of irregular payment patterns (such as clear proof of lag payments) early in the review process rather than relying on general assertions. The decision also confirms that procedural fairness concerns—such as complaints about the CRA’s collaboration or methodology—will not invalidate otherwise reasonable decisions if the applicant was genuinely informed and given a fair opportunity to respond. This precedent likely extends to other pandemic-era benefit reviews and establishes a deferential posture toward administrative decision-making in complex social benefit contexts.