Date: 20260609
Docket: T-4701-25
Citation: 2026 FC 748
Toronto, Ontario, June 9, 2026
PRESENT: Mr. Justice Pentney
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ABOLHASAN SHAERI
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
I. Background
[1] The Applicant was working for a trucking company when the COVID-19 pandemic began. He has a long-term medical condition impacting his lungs that puts him at higher risk if exposed to the virus. His condition worsened in the spring of 2020.
[2] The Applicant’s job with the trucking company involved interactions with drivers that regularly crossed the Canada-United States border. He felt this exposed him to an undue risk of contracting COVID-19. Since his employer refused to allow him to work remotely, the Applicant decided to quit his job in April 2020 to protect his health.
[3] In June 2020, the Applicant experienced health complications resulting in a pneumothorax (collapsed lung) and underwent surgery. He was unable to return to work immediately because he was recovering. Once recovered, he began applying for jobs but was unable to find a position right away. While still actively seeking work, the Applicant took the opportunity to return to school and get his master’s degree remotely from Queen’s University. During this time, the Applicant applied for and received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit (CRSB), and the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) for various periods.
[4] The Applicant eventually found a full-time remote job with CH2M Hill Canada Ltd (CH2M), starting in September 2021. This job overlapped with his remote studies at Queen’s University. Once employed, he stopped applying for COVID-19 benefits.
[5] The Canada Review Agency [CRA] later decided to validate the Applicant’s eligibility for the benefits. The Applicant was contacted in April 2024 and asked to provide documents to support his eligibility.
[6] In response, the Applicant provided information about his employment history, as well as bank statements, a letter from his employer, and a statement of earnings.
[7] In August 2024, the CRA agent conducting the first review (First Reviewer) spoke with the Applicant by phone and requested a record of employment or paystubs from CH2M, which the Applicant provided.
[8] The First Reviewer found the Applicant ineligible for the CERB, CRB, and CRSB on the basis that he had not stopped working due to COVID-19 but rather decided to take a leave of absence for his health and then went back to school. The First Reviewer found that the Applicant’s income was reduced because of his studies and not because of COVID-19. This decision was communicated to the Applicant in October 2024.
[9] The Applicant requested a second review of his eligibility.
[10] The agent conducting the second review (Second Reviewer) spoke with the Applicant on October 8, 2025. The Second Reviewer questioned why the Applicant had applied to the CRB instead of the CRSB, given that he stopped working due to a health condition. The Second Reviewer requested that the Applicant provide a medical note indicating that his medical condition made him vulnerable to COVID-19, so that they could change the benefit from the CRB to the CRSB. The Applicant was given until October 21, 2025, to provide the note. The Applicant accepted to do so, but maintained that he was in fact eligible for the CRB. In the end, the Applicant did not provide the requested document.
[11] The Second Reviewer found the Applicant was eligible for the CERB and the CRSB for all of the periods he received these benefits. However, the Second Reviewer found the Applicant ineligible for the CRB on the basis that he had stopped working for reasons other than COVID-19.
[12] The Second Reviewer said the Applicant should have applied to the CRSB, which was designed to support employees who were unable to work because of a health condition that put them at a high risk if they contracted COVID-19. The Second Reviewer noted that to change the benefit, they needed a medical note explaining how the Applicant’s condition put him at a higher risk of COVID-19. Since the medical note was not provided, the change in benefit could not be completed. The Second Reviewer stated that the CRB could not be granted because it did not cover the Applicant’s situation where a medical condition prevented him from working. The Second Reviewer also stated that the Applicant was not employed prior to his application, and so COVID-19 did not affect his work.
[13] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the second review decision.
II. Issues and Standard of Review
[14] The Applicant raises two issues: (A) is the decision reasonable? and (B) was he denied procedural fairness?
[15] The first issue is assessed under the framework for reasonableness review set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov], and confirmed in Mason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 [Mason].
[16] In summary, under the Vavilov framework, a reviewing court is to review the reasons given by the administrative decision-maker and determine whether the decision is based on an internally coherent chain of reasoning and is justified in light of the relevant legal and factual constraints (Vavilov at para 85; Mason at para 8). The onus is on the Applicant to demonstrate that “any shortcomings or flaws … are sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable”
(Vavilov at para 100). Absent exceptional circumstances, reviewing courts must not interfere with the decision-maker’s factual findings and cannot reweigh and reassess evidence considered by the decision-maker (Vavilov at para 125).
[17] Reasonableness review is a robust but respectful assessment of the decision in light of the record, with a particular focus on the reasons. A key question is whether the analysis is “intelligible”
, meaning that the line of reasoning from the facts to the law to the outcome is not marred by any fundamental flaws. In a passage quoted with approval in Vavilov, Justice Rennie put it this way, in Komolafe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 431:
[11] Newfoundland Nurses is not an open invitation to the Court to provide reasons that were not given, nor is it licence to guess what findings might have been made or to speculate as to what the tribunal might have been thinking. This is particularly so where the reasons are silent on a critical issue. It is ironic that Newfoundland Nurses, a case which at its core is about deference and standard of review, is urged as authority for the supervisory court to do the task that the decision maker did not do, to supply the reasons that might have been given and make findings of fact that were not made. This is to turn the jurisprudence on its head. Newfoundland Nurses allows reviewing courts to connect the dots on the page where the lines, and the direction they are headed, may be readily drawn. Here, there were no dots on the page.
[18] The reasons must explain the outcome. It is not enough for the outcome to be justifiable – it must be justified, through the reasons, to the person to whom the decision applies (Vavilov at para 86).
[19] Questions of procedural fairness require an approach resembling the correctness standard of review that inquires “whether the procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances”
(Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 54 [Canadian Pacific]; Heiltsuk Horizon Maritime Services Ltd v. Atlantic Towing Limited, 2021 FCA 26 at para 107). As noted in Canadian Pacific at para 56, “the ultimate question remains whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond”
, and at para 54, “[a] reviewing court... asks, with a sharp focus on the nature of the substantive rights involved and the consequences for an individual, whether a fair and just process was followed”
.
III. Analysis
A. The legislative framework
[20] The Canada Recovery Benefits Act, S.C. 2020, c. 12, s. 2 (the CRB Act) governs eligibility for the CRB. Individuals who had stopped working or had their income reduced due to COVID-19 could apply for the CRB for any two-week period between September 27, 2020, and October 23, 2021.
[21] Subsection 3(1) of the CRB Act sets out the eligibility criteria for the benefit. The criteria are non-discretionary. They include a requirement that, for each two-week period for which the benefit is claimed, the applicant had at least a 50% reduction in their income as compared to their total average weekly income for 2019 or the 12 month period preceding the day they made the application (for applications made in 2020) or for 2019, 2020, or the 12-month period before the day on which they made the application (for applications made in 2021).
[22] Additionally, in order to be eligible for the CRB, the Applicant had to have at least $5,000 in total income in 2019 (for applications for periods in 2020), or in 2019, 2020, or the 12 months before the date of the application (for applications for periods in 2021).
B. The Decision is unreasonable
[23] The Applicant has put forward several different arguments, including that he was denied procedural fairness because the Second Reviewer found that he was not working prior to seeking the CRB; he says this was contradicted by the evidence and that he was never warned this was an issue of concern. He also claims that he was treated unfairly because it was not clear what other information he needed to provide and he had no opportunity to clarify that before the decision was made. Finally, the Applicant argues that the decision should be quashed because the Second Reviewer did not analyze his eligibility for the CRB but rather focused almost exclusively on the criteria applicable for the CRSB, having concluded that the Applicant had applied for the wrong benefit.
[24] The Respondent acknowledges that there was no legal basis for the Second Reviewer to assess the Applicant’s eligibility for the CRSB because he had not applied for that benefit for the periods in question. The only issue for the Second Reviewer in respect of the CRB payments was whether the Applicant had demonstrated he met the eligibility criteria for that benefit. This turned on whether he had stopped working due to COVID, given that it was accepted that he met the prior income threshold. The Respondent argues that the Applicant failed to provide evidence to show that he met that element, and therefore the Second Reviewer’s decision, while flawed, was still reasonable.
[25] I do not find it necessary to analyze all of the issues raised by the parties, because I find there is one fatal flaw in the decision that makes it unreasonable. Simply put, from the beginning of the second review process, the Second Reviewer appears to have been convinced that the Applicant should have applied for the CRSB rather than the CRB. The Second Reviewer seems to have tried to help the Applicant by assessing his eligibility under the “right”
program. It is difficult to fault the Second Reviewer for taking this approach, and they did not appear to realize that the law did not allow this type of switch. The problem, however, is that this focus on the CRSB distracted the Second Reviewer from doing the job they were required to do by law, namely, to assess the Applicant’s eligibility for the CRB. That was not done – or at least it was not explained in the Second Reviewer’s notes. As a result, the decision is not reasonable, because the Second Reviewer’s analysis does not justify the outcome.
[26] A few examples of this focus on the CRSB are sufficient to demonstrate the point. During the call with the Applicant, the Second Reviewer notes “[w]e question why he did not appl[y] to the CRSB since [his situation] is related to his health condition.”
The notes show that the Applicant said he had a medical note stating that he was vulnerable to COVID-19. The Second Reviewer’s notes then state “[w]e requested his doctor note to be able to request a change in the benefit from CRB to CRSB.”
The call ended with the Applicant insisting that he met the CRB criteria, and the Second Reviewer giving him a deadline to submit the doctor’s note.
[27] The decision portion of the notes that explain the Second Reviewer’s reasoning continue on this theme. Having found that the Applicant met the income reduction criteria for the CRB, and noting the medical evidence the Applicant submitted about his lung condition, the Second Reviewer continued:
He had continue [sic] to take the benefit because he was not able to return to work due to his medical condition. He submitted a medical note of September 23, 2020 saying that he had pneumonia and went under surgery in June 2020, that he had limitation in working service as shortness of breath and chest pain. He was suggested to be off work until October 23, 2020. However, according to his situation, the BR should have applied to the CRSB which support employed who were unable to work because their underlying condition put them [at] greater risk of getting COVID. He stated he did not know at the time. To request a change in benefit, we must have a medical note on how his condition can be COVID related. Deadline passed, and no new documents were submitted. The change in benefit could not be completed. The CRB cannot be granted as the wrong benefit is being claim [sic] and the CRB does not cover medical condition. Additionally, he was not employed prior [to] his application, hence COVID did not affect his work and no medical professional proof said so.
[28] These notes confirm two things: (1) the Second Reviewer thought the Applicant needed to request a change in his benefit because he was not working due to his medical condition, and (2) the entire focus of the analysis was on the evidence (or lack of it) to demonstrate the Applicant’s eligibility for the CRSB. There was no separate analysis discussing the Applicant’s eligibility for the CRB, which was the only question before the Second Reviewer.
[29] The Respondent acknowledges that there was no legal basis for the Second Reviewer to switch or transfer the benefit from the CRB to the CSRB, and the Second Reviewer’s request for evidence in support of this change in benefit proceeded on a mistaken assumption. However, the Respondent points to the decision letter, which stated that the Applicant was found ineligible for the CRB because he did not establish that he was not working due to COVID-19. From that, the Respondent traces back to emphasize the portions of the Second Reviewer’s notes that focus on the lack of evidence linking the Applicant’s unemployment to COVID-19.
[30] I am unable to accept the Respondent’s explanation, because it does not correspond with the notes when read as a whole. I am required to assess the decision that was actually made, not to bolster or supplement the reasons. In this case, in order to uphold the decision along the lines proposed by the Respondent, I would have to ignore the clear statements in the reasons which indicate the Second Reviewer was focused on the Applicant’s eligibility for the CRSB, and instead magnify the importance of the snippets of the analysis that appear to relate to eligibility for the CRB. That is not consistent with the guidance from Vavilov, and confirmed in Mason, that the reasons must be read as a whole, and in light of the record. Doing that satisfies me that the decision is not intelligible because the Second Reviewer assessed the Applicant’s eligibility for the wrong benefit, rather than doing the job they were required by law to do, which was to assess his claim to the CRB. That is not reasonable, because the reasons for the conclusion that the Applicant was not eligible for the CRB are not intelligible.
[31] Another point supports my conclusion that the decision is unreasonable and is worth mentioning here. There appears to be a contradiction between the Second Reviewer’s finding that the Applicant was eligible for the CERB but ineligible for the CRB. The Second Reviewer found the Applicant eligible for the CERB and says he was verified on the “COVID relation criteria of the CERB”
. However, on the CRB, the decision letter states that the Applicant is ineligible on the basis that he was not working for reasons unrelated to COVID-19. The Second Reviewer provides no explanation for the different findings on the two benefits. In this sense, the decision is not rational and logical as required by Vavilov. I am not convinced by the Respondent’s argument that it was reasonable for the Second Reviewer to require additional documentation to prove the Applicant’s eligibility for the CRB, because the only additional documentation the Second Reviewer in fact requested was for the purpose of changing the benefit to the CRSB, not for the purpose of determining eligibility for the CRB.
[32] In light of my conclusion on the reasonableness of the decision, it is not necessary to deal with the Applicant’s arguments on procedural fairness.
[33] For the reasons set out above, the application for judicial review will be granted. The decision will be quashed and the Applicant’s eligibility for the CRB shall be remitted back for reconsideration by a different officer. Although the Respondent raised a question about whether this finding should apply to all of the periods during which the Applicant received the CRB, or only the first portion, I am unable to draw such a fine distinction given the problems in the decision. The question of the Applicant’s eligibility for the CRB for all of the periods should be re-examined by an officer.
[34] No costs were requested and none are awarded.
[35] One final procedural point. Counsel for the Respondent correctly pointed out that the Applicant’s Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) number was inadvertently not redacted in one document in the Certified Tribunal Record (CTR), and this was also included in the Applicant’s Record. The Respondent noted that the usual course would be to bring a motion for confidentiality under Rule 151, requiring proof of harm to meet the test set out in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25.
[36] I stated at the hearing that in light of the nature of the information, the clear privacy interest at stake, and noting the Applicant’s consent, I would forego the requirement for a motion and instead order that the Respondent serve and file a redacted copy of the relevant page in the CTR and Applicant’s Record (either by re-filing both in their entirety, or by filing only the relevant page with the redaction). Until that is done, the Registry was directed to not provide public access to the CTR and Applicant’s Record that are in the record.
[37] I commend counsel for the Respondent for bringing this to my attention and for the professional manner in which this was raised and dealt with. His actions reflect the highest traditions of the Attorney General of Canada as the chief law officer of the Crown.
JUDGMENT in T-4701-25
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
-
The application for judicial review is granted.
-
The decision finding the Applicant ineligible for the Canada Recovery Benefit is quashed and that matter is remitted back for reconsideration by a different officer.
-
No costs are awarded.
-
The Registry shall not provide public access to the Certified Tribunal Record and Applicant’s Record until the Respondent files new versions of these documents, with the Applicant’s OHIP number redacted on the relevant page in each.
"William F. Pentney"
Email this Content