Date: 20251121

Docket: T-2478-23

Citation: 2025 FC 1857

Toronto, Ontario, November 21, 2025

PRESENT: Mr. Justice Brouwer

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

I. Overview

[1] Oluwatoyin Felix Dairo seeks judicial review of the decision of the Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] finding him ineligible for payments he received between March and September 2020 under the Canada Emergency Response Benefits program [CERB]. As explained below, I do not agree with Mr. Dairo that the decision was unreasonable, and I must therefore dismiss his application.

II. Background

[2] Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic Mr. Dairo worked as a security guard for two security agencies, Garda Canada Security Inc. [Garda] and Paladin Security Group (Ontario) Ltd. [Paladin]. In March 2020, Mr. Dairo lost his job with Paladin due to the COVID-19 pandemic but kept working with Garda. As the loss of one of his two jobs due to COVID-19 had lowered his income, he applied for income support under the CERB. It is not disputed that he believed himself to be eligible. He received benefits totalling of $14,000 between March 15 to September 26, 2020, which represented seven four-week benefit periods.

[3] On March 2, 2022, the CRA contacted Mr. Dairo to request documentation such as bank statements, pay stubs, letters from his employer, or T4s verifying his eligibility for the CERB benefits he had received in 2020. Mr. Dairo responded by letter asserting his eligibility and including a screenshot of the CRA website that noted some eligibility criteria. He did not submit any further corroborating evidence. CRA determined that Mr. Dairo was ineligible for CERB because he had earned over $1000 employment income during each of the eligibility periods for which he had sought benefits.

[4] Mr. Dairo applied for an internal review of this decision from the CRA, called a Second Review. He submitted a letter with further explanation of his financial situation in 2020 along with pay stubs from Garda for April through July 2020, covering the first four benefit periods. A CRA officer contacted Mr. Dairo on September 18, 2023, to request additional documentation covering the remaining three benefit periods, but Mr. Dairo did not submit anything further. CRA’s second reviewer therefore proceeded on the basis of the available evidence.

[5] By decision dated October 13, 2023, the second reviewer confirmed the first level determination that Mr. Dairo was not eligible for the CERB benefits because he had continued to work, albeit for one employer instead of two, and had exceeded the $1000 income threshold in each qualifying period.

III. Issues

[6] Mr. Dairo challenges the CRA’s decision as unreasonable. In particular, he asserts that the second reviewer (a) failed to assess all the evidence, (b) failed to account for the fact that he had experienced a “meaningful and demonstrable” loss of income, (c) misinterpreted ambiguous eligibility requirements, and (d) applied an overly strict interpretation of eligibility that was not in accordance with the purpose of the program.

[7] Reasonableness review requires the Court to determine whether an impugned decision is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis that is justified in relation to the facts and law bearing upon it (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 85 [Vavilov]). Administrative decision makers need not respond to every argument or line of possible analysis, but the failure to meaningfully grapple with key issues or central arguments may call into question whether the decision-maker was actually alert and sensitive to the matter before it (Vavilov at para 128).

IV. Analysis

A. Preliminary issue: style of cause

[8] The Respondent notes that Mr. Dairo has named the incorrect party as the Respondent in this matter. I agree. Pursuant to Rule 303 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 [the Rules], the Attorney General of Canada should be named as the Respondent. The style of cause will therefore be amended with immediate effect.

B. Reasonableness of the decision

[9] To show that he qualified for the CERB benefits he received in 2020 Mr. Dairo needed to establish, among other things, that he had ceased working for reasons related to COVID-19 for at least 14 consecutive days within each of the four-week periods in respect of which he sought benefits (Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act, SC 2020, c 5, s 8 at para 6(1)(a)), and that he had not received more than $1000 in income from employment in respect of those 14 consecutive days (Income Support Payment (Excluded Nominal Income) Regulations, SOR/2020-90, s 1). These criteria are not discretionary; CERB applicants must meet them (Lang v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 1100 at para 56).

[10] Mr. Dairo acknowledges that he did not cease working. To the contrary, he worked as a security guard throughout the time that he received benefits, but he had only one employer rather than two. Moreover, the pay stubs that Mr. Dairo submitted to the CRA, which covered four of the seven periods during which he received benefits, showed income above the $1000 threshold for each of the periods reflected.

[11] During the hearing, Mr. Dairo asserted that the finding that he had exceeded the $1000 income threshold was unreasonable because his paystubs showed that his weekly income was below $1000. The threshold at issue, however, applies to biweekly income, not weekly income. Mr. Dairo unequivocally exceeded the applicable threshold of $1000 in income in every one of the 14-consecutive-day periods for which he provided payslips. The Second Reviewer’s finding reflects the evidence and the law and is entirely justified. Mr. Dairo’s further complaint that the Second Reviewer unreasonably failed to account for the “meaningful and demonstrable loss of income” he experienced when he lost one of his two jobs is likewise unsustainable. As regrettable as Mr. Dairo’s loss of income undoubtedly was, it was not a factor that the Second Reviewer was entitled to take into account when assessing eligibility for the CERB. I therefore cannot fault the Second Reviewer for not addressing it.

[12] I must also reject Mr. Dairo’s argument that the CRA’s reference in some CERB-related documents to income that was “earned” and in others to income that was “received” left some uncertainty as to what precisely needs to be included when calculating income for the purpose of evaluating CERB eligibility, and that this resulted in an unreasonable decision. According to Mr. Dairo, the alleged ambiguity should have been in his favour by excluding from consideration the temporary COVID-19 incentive and the vacation pay that he received over and above his regular income – which I understand Mr. Dairo to say he “received” but did not “earn.” Although the argument is interesting, it is entirely moot: even excluding those top ups, and indeed even limiting the calculation to net income, Mr. Dairo still exceeded the $1000 threshold for every period in respect of which he provided pay stubs. And contrary to Mr. Dairo’s submission, the Second Reviewer was not empowered to relax or vary the eligibility criteria based on the humanitarian purpose of the program.

[13] As I am not persuaded that there is anything unreasonable about the Second Reviewer’s determination that Mr. Dairo did not meet his onus to demonstrate that he was eligible for the CERB, I must dismiss this application.

[14] The Respondent has quite properly declined to seek costs against Mr. Dairo, who is unrepresented in these proceedings. I will therefore make no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT in T-2478-23

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The style of cause is amended to name the Attorney General of Canada as the respondent.

2. The application is dismissed.

3. No costs are awarded.

"Andrew J. Brouwer"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: