Background
Fatemeh Samadi was laid off in April 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. She received Employment Insurance (EI) benefits for 28 weeks ending September 26, 2020, and then received the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) for 20 two-week periods from September 27, 2020 to July 3, 2021. In August 2024, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) informed her she was ineligible for the CRB because she had “opened or could have opened” an EI claim during the CRB periods. After further submissions, a CRA officer upheld that finding in July 2025. Samadi, self-represented, applied for judicial review of the 2025 decision.
The key statutory provision was paragraph 3(1)(g) of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020, c 12 (CRB Act). As amended effective June 29, 2021 — and in force at the time of the decision — the provision bars CRB eligibility only where an EI benefit period “was established or could have been established” during the two-week CRB period, with an important exception: if such a period was established on or after September 27, 2020, the bar does not apply provided the applicant had exhausted her maximum weeks of regular or special EI benefits. The CRA officer, however, did not reference this provision at all; instead, she relied entirely on an internal non-binding document called “ESDC Flags,” which used the language “opened or could have opened an EI claim” — wording not found in the statute.
A preliminary issue arose over new evidence the applicant included in her affidavit that had not been before the officer. Justice Go excluded those exhibits, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate any of the recognized exceptions for admitting fresh evidence on judicial review under Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency, 2012 FCA 22.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Go granted the application for judicial review, finding the CRA officer’s decision unreasonable under the Vavilov standard (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65). The officer’s decision mirrored the language of the internal ESDC Flags document rather than the CRB Act, without any engagement with the statutory text or analysis of the apparent incongruity between the two. By treating the non-binding internal guidelines as determinative, the officer fettered her own discretion and failed to exercise independent judgment about whether an EI benefit period had actually “been established or could have been established” within the meaning of paragraph 3(1)(g).
The Court observed that the amended version of paragraph 3(1)(g), read together with its subparagraphs, suggests that the bar on CRB eligibility applies on or after September 27, 2020 only where an applicant actually received regular or special EI benefits — a condition not met here. The Court declined to issue a final statutory interpretation, but held it was unreasonable for the officer to apply an internal administrative standard without even briefly engaging with the remedial purpose of the CRB Act and the principles of modern statutory interpretation. The matter was remitted for redetermination by a different decision-maker, with no costs awarded.
The Court distinguished two cases cited by the Crown: in Pelletier v Canada (AG), 2024 FC 506, the applicant had actually received EI benefits concurrently with CRB; and an unreported Social Security Tribunal decision was non-binding and did not analyze CRB ineligibility on the relevant point.
Key Takeaways
- A CRA officer’s decision denying CRB is unreasonable if it applies an internal non-binding administrative guideline (ESDC Flags) without reference to — or analysis of — the governing statutory provision in the CRB Act.
- Paragraph 3(1)(g) of the CRB Act, as amended effective June 29, 2021, appears to bar CRB eligibility on or after September 27, 2020 only where an applicant was in actual receipt of regular or special EI benefits — not merely because an EI claim was or could have been “opened.”
- Decision-makers must be “alive to the text, context, and purpose” of remedial pandemic-relief legislation and engage, even briefly, with statutory interpretation where an incongruity exists between internal guidelines and the statute.
- Fresh evidence not placed before the original decision-maker will be excluded on judicial review absent an established exception under Access Copyright.
Why It Matters
This decision adds to a growing body of Federal Court jurisprudence scrutinizing CRA denials of pandemic-era benefits — EI, CERB, and CRB — where officers have mechanically applied internal administrative flags rather than the underlying legislation. The case signals that internal CRA tools such as ESDC Flags are reference points only and cannot substitute for a genuine statutory analysis, particularly where the guideline’s language diverges from the Act’s text.
For the many Canadians who received CRB following an EI claim and now face repayment demands, the decision raises a meaningful interpretive question about the scope of paragraph 3(1)(g): the Court’s reasoning suggests the amended provision may protect individuals who exhausted their EI entitlement before transitioning to CRB, rather than disqualifying anyone who merely had an open or openable EI claim. Although the Court expressly reserved a final ruling on statutory interpretation, the analysis will likely inform future redeterminations and litigation involving similar fact patterns.