Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Zachery Amero's eligibility for CERB, CRB, and CWLB was denied due to insufficient documentary evidence proving his income fell within the statutory thresholds required by the respective benefit legislation.

• New evidence appended to the Applicant's affidavit on judicial review was inadmissible as it failed to meet any of the three recognized exceptions under Access Copyright for admitting evidence not before the original decision maker.

• Incomplete invoices and the absence of bank statements prevented the CRA's Second Reviewer from confirming when the Applicant worked and when he was paid, making eligibility verification impossible.

• Procedural fairness was not breached, as the Applicant was informed of the case to meet, given opportunities to submit documents on two reviews, and failed to connect with the Second Reviewer despite a scheduled call and extended deadline.

• Reliance on Cameron v Canada was rejected because that case involved a failure to accommodate a disability, which was factually distinguishable from the circumstances here.

• The Applicant's request for $126,000 in hardship compensation was denied as he did not plead the relevant legal tests or provide evidence to establish entitlement to costs.

Background and facts of the case

Zachery N.B. Amero is a self-employed individual who works in the live music industry in the maritime provinces. From March 22, 2020 onwards, Amero was unable to work as his income was reduced or eliminated entirely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He subsequently applied for and received several federal emergency benefits: the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) for periods 1 to 7 from March 15, 2020 to September 26, 2020; the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) for periods 3, 4, and 7 from October 25, 2020 to November 21, 2020, and from December 20, 2020 to January 2, 2021; and the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit (CWLB) for periods 9 to 14 from December 19, 2021 to January 29, 2022.

The CRA review process and initial finding of ineligibility

On May 28, 2024, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) notified Amero by letter that it would review his entitlement to benefits and asked him to provide supporting documentation. Amero submitted invoices for his services, tax returns, and explanations on July 2, 2024. On September 6, 2024, the CRA issued its First Decision finding Amero ineligible for all three benefits. For CERB, the determination was that he had earned more than $1,000 in employment or self-employment income and had not had his hours reduced or stopped working due to COVID-19. For both CRB and CWLB, the CRA found that his average weekly income was not reduced by 50% due to COVID-19.

The second review and the Applicant's failure to engage

Amero requested a second review of his eligibility by a letter dated September 23, 2024, accompanied by copies of invoices and emails. On July 15, 2025, the Second Reviewer attempted to contact Amero by telephone to discuss his submissions. She left a voicemail outlining her working hours of 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time and provided a deadline of July 29, 2025, for him to return her call. Amero returned the call the same day and agreed to call the next day at an agreed upon time, but he called after the Second Reviewer's working hours instead. He left a message for the Second Reviewer to call him later that day, again after the Second Reviewer's working hours, and advised of his unavailability on July 17, 18, and 19. Amero did not speak with the Second Reviewer before July 29, 2025. The Second Decision, released on August 6, 2025, found Amero not entitled to the benefits for the same reasons articulated in the First Decision.

Statutory eligibility requirements at issue

The relevant legislation set out specific thresholds the Applicant needed to satisfy. Under section 6 of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act, a worker must cease working for reasons related to COVID-19 for at least 14 consecutive days within the applicable four-week period and must not receive more than $1,000 in employment or self-employment income during those consecutive days. Under paragraph 3(1)(f) of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, the applicant must demonstrate a reduction of at least 50% in average weekly employment or self-employment income for the relevant two-week period compared to 2019 or the preceding 12 months, for reasons related to COVID-19. Under paragraph 4(1)(f) of the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit Act, the applicant must show, among other things, a 50% reduction in average weekly income relative to the prior year, for reasons related to measures imposed by a lockdown order.

The evidentiary gap and income documentation

The invoices Amero submitted showed total income of $5,319.56 in 2019, $8,848.50 in 2020, and $1,988.00 in 2021. However, his tax records told a different story: for 2019, he reported a T4 income of $430, gross business income of $15,067, and net self-employment income of $13,223. For 2020, he reported an income of $17,000, which includes $14,000 of CERB benefits and $2,000 of CRB benefits, gross business income of $10,816, and net self-employment income of $10,550. For 2021, he reported $1,000 of CRB benefits, $11,705 of other employment income, $17,189 of gross business income, and $16,652 of net self-employment income. The significant discrepancy between the invoices submitted and the income reported on his tax returns meant the Second Reviewer was unable to confirm when Amero worked as a self-employed individual and when he was paid. Amero himself explained during the hearing before the Court that he provided the CRA with the invoices he thought were relevant and he cannot figure why he did not submit all of them. No bank statements or further invoices were provided.

Admission of new evidence on judicial review

Amero appended numerous new exhibits to his affidavit on judicial review, including news releases about Nova Scotia's state of emergency, CRA webpages describing the benefits, notices of assessment for 2019 through 2021, additional invoices, phone call screenshots, a notice of collection of CERB in the amount of $13,811.38 issued on October 28, 2024, and a chronological account of events he had prepared. The Court noted that, under established law, the evidentiary record on judicial review is constrained to the evidence before the decision maker, subject to three exceptions: the new evidence provides helpful general background; the new evidence addresses procedural defects not found in the record; or the new evidence addresses the complete absence of evidence on an issue before the decision maker. Justice Saint-Fleur found that none of these exceptions applied and declined to admit the new evidence.

Reasonableness of the decision

Amero argued the Second Decision lacked reasons, ignored evidence, and misapplied the eligibility criteria. He contended that the Second Decision contained no reasons except standard form language with no analysis, reference to his evidence, or explanation of their calculations. He also claimed the Second Reviewer applied incorrect thresholds. The Court rejected this argument, finding that the Second Reviewer did not require the Applicant to have no income or completely stop working to be eligible for the benefits. The Court held that the Applicant was responsible for demonstrating he met the eligibility criteria for CERB, CRB, and CWLB, but did not do so. Because he did not provide all invoices for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 taxation years, the Second Reviewer was unable to confirm when the Applicant worked and when he was paid. The Court agreed with the Respondent that the Second Decision was reasonable, finding that the Second Reviewer did not misapprehend or misapply the eligibility criteria, provided reasons, and addressed the Applicant's evidence.

Procedural fairness

Amero also claimed a breach of procedural fairness, arguing the Second Reviewer did not properly communicate with him and did not return his calls despite scheduling a call. The Court found no merit in this argument. The CRA's Initial Contact Letter had informed Amero of the types of documents required to support his eligibility, and the First Decision letter informed him of the reasons why he was not eligible. After the first finding of ineligibility, he was advised he could request a second review and was told he could provide any new and relevant documents, facts, or correspondence. The Second Reviewer attempted to call the Applicant and provided a deadline, which was subsequently extended. Despite these opportunities, Amero did not speak with the Second Reviewer before the deadline and did not submit the additional documents he had stated he intended to provide. The Court distinguished Cameron v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 2, on which Amero relied, noting that the Court in Cameron based its finding of a breach of procedural fairness on the CRA's failure to provide requested accommodations for the applicant's disability, which was dissimilar to the facts before this Court.

Ruling and outcome

The Federal Court, presided over by the Honourable Madam Justice Saint-Fleur, dismissed Amero's application for judicial review on April 29, 2026, finding the CRA's Second Decision to be reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court also amended the style of cause to list the Attorney General of Canada as the proper Respondent, as Amero had incorrectly named the CRA. Amero's request for compensation for hardship and stress—calculated at $500 for each day beginning on August 6, 2025, until his judicial review was resolved, totalling $126,000—was denied, as he had not pled the relevant legal tests or evidence to establish his entitlement to costs. The Court found this was not an appropriate case for costs. Ultimately, the application for judicial review was dismissed without costs, and no monetary award was granted in favour of either party.