Public opinion has it that CERB eligibility criteria were easy to understand. That would mean that people who applied for CERB and were subsequently found ineligible were either careless or possibly trying to get away with what many saw as ‘loose’ rules.
Is that true or false? That is, even though we know that it was easy to obtain CERB, were the CERB rules easy to understand?
10 questions about CERB eligibility
Here are 10 questions about CERB eligibility. Readers are encouraged to see how many they answer correctly and then think about whether the CERB rules were easy to understand. Answers follow the questions after question 10:
- The $5,000 eligibility threshold only applied to earnings.
True or False? - People receiving social assistance (often called income assistance or welfare) were often informed by staff that they were obligated to apply for CERB as a condition of ongoing eligibility for social assistance.
True or False? - Applicants for CERB could count earnings replacement program benefits like workers’ compensation or CPP towards the $5,000 threshold.
True or false? - Applicants for CERB could count Honourariums towards the $5,000 threshold.
True of False? - If someone with legitimate earnings of $4,999 applied for CERB, they were completely disentitled to all CERB funds.
True or False? - If an applicant was working in the cash economy, did not owe any income taxes, and spent money paid by customers to them for necessities while keeping meticulous records of all services to their customers, they could count these funds earned towards the $5,000 threshold.
True or False? - Applicants for CERB were able to count EI parental leave benefits towards the $5,000 threshold.
True or False? - Some applicants for CERB were legally employed for amounts over $5,000, had employment contracts but their employers ran into trouble during the pandemic and did not fully pay them wages that to which they were legally entitled. They could use these earnings owed to them towards the $5,000 threshold.
True or False? - If a CERB applicant was found ineligible by the Canada Revenue Agency and they took it to Tax Court for Judicial review and won their case, CRA would normally be forced to pay out the CERB retroactively.
True or False? - If a social services worker forced a CERB applicant in receipt of social assistance (income assistance or welfare) to apply for CERB even though it was clear that the recipient had not worked and was ineligible for the CERB, the worker would still be fully legally entitled to obligate the recipient to apply for CERB.
True or False?
Answers:
- False.
The eligibility threshold of $5,000 also applied to other payments like confirmed gratuities. - True.
Social assistance staff told recipients in many provinces that they were obligated to apply and this was commonplace in Ontario and Nova Scotia. - False.
Earnings replacement programs like Workers’ compensation and CPP and EI were not eligible as income qualifying for the threshold. - False.
Although Honourariums were specifically listed as eligible income on the CRA website, CERB law did not include them and they were not counted as eligible. - True.
Canada’s tax court has confirmed that the $5,000 threshold must be met, Any amount below $5,000 completely disqualified applicants for all benefits. - False.
Any cash earnings not deposited at a financial institution following their receipt and subsequently reported to CRA, did not qualify for the $5,000 threshold. - True.
Counting EI parental leave benefits towards the $5,000 threshold was part of the original rules. - False.
Qualifying earnings had to be paid to an earner within the qualifying period. Earnings owed did not count. No exceptions. - False.
The vast majority of cases were sent back to CRA to adjudicate again with a new reviewer. Few if any benefits have been directly reinstated by Canada’s Tax Courts. - True.
For example, in Ontario, the regulations specifically allowed the Director (as delegated) to cancel benefits where, in their opinion, other resources may be available. In other words, the Director was able to act on the opinion they formed regardless of it being correct and would be still fully within the law.