Background
Mohamed Yaseer, self-represented, applied for and received pandemic-era benefits under three federal programs: the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) for periods between March and July 2020, the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) for periods in spring and summer 2021, and the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit (CRSB) for a week in April 2021. In June 2024, the CRA notified him that his eligibility was under review and requested supporting documentation. Yaseer responded with records of employment, T4 and T4A slips, and a letter, but declined to continue a follow-up telephone call from a CRA officer due to security concerns, asking instead that further requests be made in writing or through secure CRA channels.
A first-review decision issued in November 2024 found Yaseer ineligible for all three benefits. He requested a second review and submitted additional materials, including pay slips, records of employment, and a self-prepared Excel spreadsheet calculating his income reductions. A second CRA officer telephoned Yaseer in August 2025, provided her contact details and a secure callback procedure, and set a deadline of September 2, 2025 for him to respond. Yaseer did not call back by the deadline. On September 5, 2025, the CRA issued its second-review decision maintaining the finding of ineligibility for CERB, CRB, and CRSB.
Yaseer sought judicial review in Federal Court, arguing that the CRA breached procedural fairness by refusing to communicate its specific concerns in writing, and that the second-review decision was unreasonable because it failed to engage with the evidence he had submitted.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Manson dismissed the application. On procedural fairness, the Court found no breach. Yaseer had received written notice of the eligibility concerns through the June 2024 review letter and the November 2024 first-review decision, and had been given a meaningful opportunity to participate in the second review. The second officer did not proceed immediately on the existing file; she telephoned Yaseer, provided identifying information and a secure callback method, and set a deadline before deciding. While Yaseer’s caution about unsolicited calls was understandable, procedural fairness does not require the best possible process — only a fair one — and communicating solely by written correspondence was not required in the circumstances. The Court also dismissed arguments based on a minor phone-number discrepancy in a call log and an erroneous reference to “CESB” (rather than CERB) in an internal note, finding neither was material to the outcome.
On reasonableness, the Court held the decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible. Although the decision letter itself was brief, the second officer’s contemporaneous notes formed part of the reasons and disclosed her path of reasoning. Those notes showed she had reviewed the submitted materials and identified specific unresolved gaps: the applicant’s employment and payment schedules, the method of payment, the absence of documentation for some employers, and — critically — the link between his employment circumstances and COVID-19. The Court noted that T4s, records of employment, and pay stubs can demonstrate income and employment history but do not necessarily establish why work ended, whether hours were reduced, or whether the required statutory thresholds were met for each specific benefit period. The self-prepared spreadsheet, while relevant, was not determinative in the absence of corroborating source documents. The onus rested on Yaseer to establish eligibility on a balance of probabilities, and the second officer reasonably concluded he had not discharged it.
Key Takeaways
- A CRA second-review officer may conduct a benefit eligibility review by telephone rather than written correspondence, provided the applicant has received adequate prior written notice and is given a secure means to respond; declining to use that opportunity does not constitute a procedural fairness violation by the CRA.
- Standard employment income documents (T4s, records of employment, pay stubs) are not automatically sufficient to establish eligibility for CERB, CRB, or CRSB — applicants must also demonstrate the required COVID-19 causal connection and satisfy the specific income-reduction or work-interruption thresholds for each benefit period.
- A self-prepared income spreadsheet may organize an applicant’s position but does not prove the underlying figures or establish causation; the decision maker is entitled to require corroborating source documents.
- Minor clerical errors in CRA internal notes (a wrong phone number, a benefit acronym typo) do not establish procedural unfairness where they had no material effect on the applicant’s notice or opportunity to participate.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the limited scope of procedural fairness obligations in administrative benefit reviews. Agencies need not offer every possible accommodation — including a shift to written-only communication — so long as they provide adequate notice of the issues, a meaningful opportunity to respond, and a reasonable process overall. For COVID-19 benefit claimants still facing CRA reassessments, the ruling underscores that the burden to substantiate eligibility rests firmly with the applicant and that general income documentation, standing alone, will not satisfy the specific statutory criteria linking work disruption to COVID-19.
The case also illustrates how officer notes can rescue a brief decision letter from a reasonableness challenge: where contemporaneous notes disclose the decision maker’s concerns and the path of reasoning, a court applying the Vavilov standard will read those notes as part of the reasons and decline to intervene. Practitioners advising clients in administrative reviews should ensure clients engage proactively with agency-offered contact opportunities, as failing to respond by a set deadline will be held against them.