An Embrun hairstylist is confronting a significant financial setback after being instructed to return thousands of dollars in pandemic aid. Dawn Barton, who operates a hair salon in the Ontario community, has been asked by the federal government to repay $17,000 in pandemic relief benefits she received during the COVID-19 crisis.
The Sudden Repayment Demand
Barton, like many small business owners across Canada, applied for and received financial support when public health restrictions forced the temporary closure of personal care services. The funds were a lifeline intended to cover business expenses and personal living costs during an unprecedented period of economic uncertainty. However, in a recent development, she received notification that she must pay back the full amount.
The demand highlights the ongoing and complex process of post-audit reviews conducted by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) on claims made under emergency programs like the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB). Many applicants who believed they qualified are now facing reassessments and repayment letters years later.
Navigating Eligibility and Appeals
While the specific reasons for Barton's repayment order have not been publicly detailed by officials, such cases often revolve around interpretations of eligibility criteria, such as net pre-pandemic income thresholds or the nature of the income loss. For self-employed individuals and small business owners, proving eligibility can be particularly challenging due to variable income streams.
Barton's situation underscores a wider issue affecting thousands of Canadians. Recipients who disagree with a CRA decision have the right to request a review or file a formal appeal. This process, however, can be lengthy and stressful, adding to the financial anxiety caused by the initial repayment demand.
The Lingering Impact on Small Businesses
The request for a $17,000 repayment represents a substantial sum for a local hairstylist, potentially threatening the financial stability of her business, which has already weathered the storm of lockdowns and reduced client capacity. This case brings to light the long-tail consequences of the pandemic's economic response, where the very support designed to save businesses now poses a new threat.
As of January 8, 2026, Barton's story is a reminder that the fallout from the pandemic's economic measures is far from over. It serves as a cautionary tale for other benefit recipients who may yet face similar reviews and emphasizes the importance of seeking professional financial advice if a repayment letter arrives.
The federal government has maintained that the integrity of support programs is paramount, but advocates continue to call for more clarity, compassion, and flexibility in the review process, especially for those who applied in good faith during a national emergency.
