Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Mr. Jason Verma was found ineligible for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) after receiving concurrent Employment Insurance (EI) payments, contrary to paragraph 6(1)(b)(ii) of the CERB Act.

• Bank statements submitted by Mr. Verma were ruled inadmissible because they were not before the original decision maker and did not meet the narrow exceptions for new evidence on judicial review.

• Procedural fairness was upheld as the CRA's notice of redetermination sufficiently communicated the basis for ineligibility, despite the applicant's claim of misunderstanding the grounds.

• The CRA agent's protocol did not mandate requesting additional documents before making an ineligibility determination, negating the applicant's procedural argument.

• Under the reasonableness standard of review, the Agent's reliance on ESDC-confirmed EI payment dates constituted a transparent and justified basis for the decision.

• The onus rested on the benefit recipient to prove eligibility on a balance of probabilities, and Mr. Verma failed to provide supporting documentation during the second review.

Background and facts of the case
Jason Verma applied for and received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) for six four-week periods between March 15, 2020, and August 29, 2020. The CERB was a federal benefit program established under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act, SC 2020, c 5, s 8, designed to provide income support to workers who suffered a loss of income due to the pandemic and who could not benefit from the protection usually offered under the employment insurance plan. A key eligibility requirement under section 6 of the CERB Act was that a worker applying for the CERB could not also receive benefits as defined in the Employment Insurance Act, SC 1996, c 23, as stipulated in subparagraph 6(1)(b)(ii) of the CERB Act.
The CRA eligibility review and initial decision
Mr. Verma was selected for an eligibility compliance review by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). In a letter dated November 10, 2022, a CRA agent found that he was ineligible because he had received both EI payments and the CERB for nearly all of the periods in which he applied. A subsequent letter dated November 17, 2022, revised the calculation regarding the amount Mr. Verma owed to the CRA but otherwise reiterated the finding of ineligibility. In response, Mr. Verma filed an objection dated February 23, 2023, stating that he had received "the benefit" from both Service Canada and the CRA during the pandemic but that these payment periods did not overlap.
The second review and its findings
The CRA conducted another review based on Mr. Verma's submissions. In a letter dated February 29, 2024, the Agent found Mr. Verma to be ineligible for the majority of the periods in which he received the CERB. The Agent's internal notes showed that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) had been contacted to confirm the dates on which Mr. Verma had received EI payments. The notes from the Agent and ESDC showed that Mr. Verma received EI payments for each week in the four-week periods when he received the CERB from March 15 to August 1, 2020, and for two weeks of the four-week period in which Mr. Verma received the CERB from August 2, 2020, to August 29, 2020.
The judicial review application and preliminary issues
Mr. Verma, acting as a self-represented litigant, sought judicial review of the Agent's February 29, 2024 decision before the Federal Court. Two preliminary issues arose. First, the Court amended the style of cause to reflect the Attorney General of Canada as the proper respondent, pursuant to Rule 303 of the Federal Court Rules, SOR/98-106. Second, the Respondent challenged the admissibility of bank statements Mr. Verma included in his Application Record on the basis that they were not before the decision maker and did not fit under one of the prescribed categories of admissibility. The Court agreed, finding the bank statements inadmissible. Generally, in a judicial review, the Court does not admit evidence on the record that was not before the decision maker, as the Court's role is to determine whether the administrative decision was reasonable in light of the facts and law before the decision maker at the time of their decision. The narrow exceptions allow a reviewing court to admit new evidence where it (1) provides general background that might assist the Court in understanding the issues relevant to the judicial review; (2) is necessary to bring the Court's attention to procedural defects; or (3) highlights the complete absence of evidence before the administrative decision maker. The Court further noted that even if the bank statements had been admitted, they would not have assisted Mr. Verma, as they did not disprove that he received EI through other means.
Procedural fairness analysis
At the hearing, Mr. Verma emphasized that the Agent had failed to adequately communicate to him that the central issue in finding him ineligible for the CERB was his receipt of the CERB and EI in the same benefit periods. Instead, he understood that his ineligibility determination was based on his receipt of two CERB benefits in the same period. The Court found that the November 17, 2022 notice of redetermination, which stated that the CRA's records show that Mr. Verma received "a benefit from Service Canada and from the Canada Revenue Agency for the same period," was sufficient for Mr. Verma to know the case he needed to meet given the low level of procedural fairness required in the context. Mr. Verma also submitted that the Agent did not request additional documents when they were posed to make an ineligibility determination, thus deviating from the protocol. The Court rejected this argument, finding that the protocol CRA agents follow in the CERB eligibility determinations allows agents to request additional documents where "required," and does not require agents to ask for additional documents whenever they intend on making an ineligibility determination. Consequently, the Court found no breach of procedural fairness.
Reasonableness of the decision
On the merits, the Court applied the reasonableness standard of review as established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. Mr. Verma submitted that the Agent's finding relies on vague internal notes and lacks evidence to support the determination that he was ineligible. The Court disagreed, noting that the Agent's reasons were not vague but rather indicated specific dates and explicit confirmation from the ESDC that Mr. Verma received both EI payments and the CERB in the same periods. The Court emphasized that it is the benefit recipient who bears the onus in proving, on a balance of probabilities, that they are eligible to receive a benefit under the CERB Act. The Court found that Mr. Verma knew the case to meet when submitting his request for the second review of his eligibility, but he did not provide any documentation to support his assertion. Given the information available to the Agent at the time of the second review, the Court found the determination was reasonable in light of the applicable facts and law.
Ruling and outcome
The Federal Court, presided over by the Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed, dismissed Mr. Verma's application for judicial review on May 4, 2026. The Court found the Agent's second review decision to be justified, intelligible, and transparent, concluding that the Agent reasonably found Mr. Verma ineligible for the CERB in the given periods because the ESDC had confirmed that he received EI payments at the same time as he collected the CERB for the majority of the applicable periods. The application was dismissed without costs, and no specific monetary amount was ordered against or in favor of either party, as the judgment contained no order as to costs and the proceeding concerned the reasonableness of the administrative eligibility decision.