Docket: T-3126-25
Citation: 2026 FC 775
Moncton, New Brunswick, June 10, 2026
PRESENT: Madam Justice Go
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
FATEMEH SAMADI
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Fatemeh Samadi, was laid off by her employer in April 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Applicant applied for and received Employment Insurance [EI] benefits for 28 weeks between March 15, 2020 and September 26, 2020.
[2] The Applicant then applied for and received the Canada Recovery Benefit [CRB] for 20 two-week periods from September 27, 2020 to July 3, 2021.
[3] The Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] subsequently reviewed the Applicant’s eligibility and by a letter dated August 8, 2024, informed her that she was not eligible for the CRB because the Applicant “opened or could have opened a claim for [EI]”
[First Review Decision].
[4] After receiving the Applicant’s further submissions, by a letter dated July 23, 2025 [Decision], a CRA officer [Officer] informed the Applicant that she was not eligible for the CRB for the same reason as indicated in the First Review Decision.
[5] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the Decision. For the reasons set out below, I grant the application.
II. Preliminary Issues
[6] The Respondent raises two preliminary issues.
[7] First, the Respondent points out that the appropriate respondent is the Attorney General of Canada only. I agree. The style of cause is amended accordingly.
[8] Second, the Respondent submits that that the Court should disregard additional information and exhibits that the Applicant included in her affidavit for judicial review that were not before the Officer, namely paragraphs 6, 11, 12, 13, and 18 in the Applicant’s Affidavit which introduce the following exhibits:
-
Exhibit A: the Applicant’s T4 slips (2019 & 2020) and Notices of Assessment (2019-2021);
-
Exhibit F: Travel proof for June 29 to August 12, 2020;
-
Exhibit H: CRA account dated June 10, 2025;
-
Exhibit I: Government of Canada CRB Eligibility (official page printout); and
-
Exhibit K: screen shot of the Applicant’s Service Canada EI Claim record dated October 29, 2020, indicating that EI benefits were not payable to the Applicant as of October 5, 2020 because the Applicant was considered not available for work.
[9] The Respondent argues none of the exceptions for considering new evidence outlined in Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency, 2012 FCA 22 [Access Copyright] at para 20 applies in this situation.
[10] Having reviewed the record, I concur with the Respondent that the Applicant did not include the above noted exhibits in her submissions to the CRA. As well, the Applicant fails to demonstrate any of the exceptions in Access Copyright apply to her case. I therefore decline to admit the new evidence that was not put before the Officer.
III. Analysis
[11] The Applicant raises several issues to argue the Decision was unreasonable. The Applicant also submits there was procedural unfairness.
[12] I find the determinative issue is the reasonableness of the Decision: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.
[13] A reasonable decision “is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker:”
Vavilov at para 85. The onus is on the Applicant to demonstrate that the Decision is unreasonable: Vavilov at para 100. To set aside a decision on this basis, “the reviewing court must be satisfied that there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency:”
Vavilov at para 100.
[14] As the Applicant submits and I agree, while the Officer found her ineligible for CRB because the Applicant “opened or could have opened an EI claim”
during the periods when she received CRB, the enabling legislation, namely the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, SC 2020, c 12, s 2 [CRB Act], contains no provision barring recipients who “opened or could have opened an EI claim.”
[15] Instead, paragraph 3(1)(g) of CRB Act states:
Eligibility
|
Admissibilité
|
3(1) A person is eligible for a Canada recovery benefit for any two-week period falling within the period beginning on September 27, 2020 and ending on October 23, 2021 if
|
3(1) Est admissible à la prestation canadienne de relance économique, à l’égard de toute période de deux semaines comprise dans la période commençant le 27 septembre 2020 et se terminant le 23 octobre 2021, la personne qui remplit les conditions suivantes :
|
[…]
|
[…]
|
(g) no benefit period, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, was established or could have been established in respect of the person in respect of any week that falls within the two-week period or, if such a benefit period was established on or after September 27, 2020 in respect of the person in respect of any week that falls within the two-week period,
|
g) aucune période de prestations, au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi sur l’assurance-emploi, n’a été établie ou n’aurait pu être établie à l’égard de toute semaine comprise dans la période de deux semaines ou, si une telle période de prestations a été établie le 27 septembre 2020 ou après cette date à l’égard d’une telle semaine :
|
(i) the person was paid regular benefits, as defined in that subsection, for the maximum number of weeks for which those benefits may be paid in that benefit period under Part I of that Act, or
|
(i) ou bien la personne a reçu des prestations régulières, au sens de ce paragraphe, pour le nombre maximal de semaines à l’égard desquelles ces prestations peuvent être versées au cours de la période de prestations au titre de la partie I de cette loi,
|
(ii) the person was paid regular benefits and special benefits, as defined in that subsection, for the maximum number of weeks for which both those benefits may be paid in that benefit period under Part I of that Act;
|
(ii) ou bien la personne a reçu des prestations régulières et des prestations spéciales, au sens de ce paragraphe, pour le nombre maximal de semaines à l’égard desquelles ces deux prestations peuvent être versées au cours de la période de prestations au titre de la partie I de cette loi;
|
[Emphasis added.]
|
Vide
|
[16] Paragraph 3(1)(g) appears to suggest that the Applicant would not qualify for the CRB if, during the periods while receiving the CRB, she had any EI benefit period that “was or could have been established.”
However, when read in conjunction with subparagraphs (i) and (ii), it seems that paragraph 3(1)(g) would only apply if an applicant was actually paid regular or special EI benefits on or after September 27, 2020.
[17] In the Applicant’s case, she began to receive CRB on September 27, 2020, after she stopped receiving EI benefits. Yet, according to the internal email regarding the Applicant’s Employment and Social Development Canada [ESDC] flag [ESDC flag email], the Applicant “opened or could have opened an EI claim”
during the periods when she received the CRB, even though she did not receive any regular or special EI benefits. The Officer also relied on an internal procedure document called “ESDC Flags”
to determine if the Applicant was eligible for the CRB. The ESDC Flags states, among other things, that an applicant with an “ESDC CRB”
flag has established “an EI Benefit Period (i.e. open EI claim)”
since September 27, 2020. Based on the ESDC Flags and the ESDC flag email, the Officer found the Applicant was ineligible for the CRB because the Applicant “opened or could have opened an EI claim”
during the periods when she received the CRB.
[18] The Officer did not refer to paragraph 3(1)(g) of the CRB Act in the Decision, nor did she analyze the apparent inconsistency between the wording in paragraph 3(1)(g) and the statements in the ESDC Flags which the Officer followed in making the Decision.
[19] At the hearing, I asked the Respondent’s counsel how to make sense of the above emphasized portion of paragraph 3(1)(g) considering the factual context of this case. Counsel for the Respondent was unable to provide any clarity as to the interpretation of paragraph 3(1)(g) while confirming there has not been any case law to date dealing specifically with this provision.
[20] Instead, the Respondent continues to argue that the Decision was reasonable, as it was reasonable for the Officer to rely on the ESDC flag email and the ESDC Flags to determine if the Applicant was eligible for the CRB. While acknowledging that the guidelines set out in the ESDC Flags are not legally binding, the Respondent argues they serve as a critical reference point for reviewing officers: Christen v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FCA 101 at para 29.
[21] I reject the Respondent’s arguments for the following reasons.
[22] The Decision states that the Applicant was not eligible for the CRB because the Applicant “opened or could have opened an EI claim.”
As the Applicant submits, and I agree, such wording mirrors the internal ESDC Flags document, not the CRB Act. The Officer equated the ESDC Flags with the legislative requirement, without considering whether there is any incongruity between the two. In so doing, the Officer also fettered their discretion by treating the ESDC Flags and the ESDC email flag as determinative considerations and failed to exercise her own judgment to assess whether an EI period “was or could have been established”
in the Applicant’s case pursuant to the legislative provision.
[23] Further, I note that the CRB Act was amended several times since its enactment on October 2, 2020. In its original version, paragraph 3(1)(g) read as follows:
(g) no benefit period, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, was established or could have been established in respect of any week that falls within the two-week period;
|
g) aucune période de prestations, au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi sur l’assurance-emploi, n’a été établie ou n’aurait pu être établie à l’égard de toute semaine comprise dans la période de deux semaines;
|
[24] The original version of the provision did not include the above emphasized wording in the most current provision. This, in my view, suggests that the CRB eligibility provision was amended such that on or after September 27, 2020, a benefit period under EI was or could have been established only if an applicant was in actual receipt of a regular or special EI benefit. The amendment in question came into effect on June 29, 2021 and continued to be in effect at the time the Decision was made.
[25] I need not make a final determination on the interpretation of paragraph 3(1)(g). Nor is it my role to try and reconcile the apparent contradiction between the provision as it was written at the time of the Decision, and the statements contained in the ESDC Flags document. The issue here is that the Officer never engaged with any analysis of the relevant legislative provision, before finding the Applicant ineligible for CRB.
[26] In a recent decision, Justice Ahmed reminded CRA agents the need to be “alive to the text, context, and purpose”
of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act [CERB Act]: Matta v Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FC 612 [Matta] at para 24 citing Judt v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 2012 [Judt] at para 24; Pepa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 SCC 21 [Pepa] at paras 47 and 62; Vavilov at para 120).
[27] Justice Ahmed continued to state in Matta at para 24: “The Agent need not engage in a formal statutory analysis, but they still must be aware of the remedial purpose of the CERB Act and engage, even briefly, with the principles of modern statutory interpretation where there may be an incongruency between their interpretation and the text, context, or purpose of the act (
Judt at para 28;
Pepa at para 63).”
[28] While the legislation involved in this case is different, I find Justice Ahmed’s comment applicable.
[29] I find it unreasonable for the Officer to rely on the wording of the ESDC Flags without considering the remedial purpose of the CRB Act, and to fail to engage, even briefly, with the principles of modern statutory interpretation in order to consider the incongruency, if any, between the ESDC Flags and the CRB Act. While the ESDC Flags may serve as a “critical reference point,”
as the Respondent submits, the Decision does not reflect that the Officer considered the legal constraints as provided by the CRB Act, but instead relied solely on the non-binding guidelines set out in the ESDC Flags.
[30] Besides, I note the ESDC Flags itself contains a warning that “the date the flag was set does not always accurately reflect when the EI claim was opened or could have been opened.”
The ESDC Flags also suggests other steps that a CRA agent may undertake to confirm if the Applicant qualifies for the CRB after the EI end date. The Officer’s reliance on the wording in ESDC Flags therefore does not hold its own weight.
[31] Finally, I find the cases cited by the Respondent distinguishable. In Pelletier v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 506 at para 2, the applicant received EI benefit during the time he received the CRB benefit that was later determined as an overpayment to the applicant by the CRA. In ST v Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2021 SST 262 at para 3, the Social Security Tribunal [SST] dealt with an individual who requested to cancel his EI claim so that he could qualify for the CRB. The SST did not analyze the CRB ineligibility determination in its decision, and in any event, a decision of the SST is not binding on the Court.
[32] For all the reasons above, I find there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the Decision to warrant the Court’s interference.
IV. Conclusion
[33] The application for judicial review is allowed, and the matter is referred back for redetermination by a different decision-maker.
[34] There is no order as to costs.
Email this Content