Appeal Allowed: Commission's Decision on Reconsideration Time

Citation: DL  v  [NAME] Commission , 2026  [NAME]  216 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated January 21, 2026 (GE-25-3465) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: May 20, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent Respondent’s representative Decision date: May 27, 2026 File number: AD-26-120 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matter Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 2 ] The General Division erred in law. I am making the decision that should have been made. [ 3 ] The [NAME] Commission (Commission) exercised its discretion judicially. So, the Commission’s decision not to give the Claimant more time to request a reconsideration still stands. Overview [ 4 ] The Claimant, D. L., applied for regular Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) benefits on March 22, 2023. Footnote 1 [ 5 ] On April 11, 2023, the Commission decided that it could not pay [NAME] benefits to the Claimant from March 1, 2023, because her authorization to work in Canada ended on February 28, 2023. Footnote 2 The Commission also decided it couldn’t pay the Claimant [NAME] benefits because her temporary resident status expired and she no longer had status in Canada. [ 6 ] On September 11, 2025, the Commission received a letter from the Claimant requesting her [NAME] benefits for when her job ended in February 2023. Footnote 3 In her letter, she said that an [NAME] officer had told her in 2023 that she could receive [NAME] benefits, while another said she had to wait. She said that she was now eligible to work in Canada as she had filed an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Footnote 4 She said that she was allowed to work and that she had filed an application for a work permit in May 2025. She expected to receive her new work permit by late October 2025. [ 7 ] The Commission decided not to reconsider its decision. Footnote 5 It explained that the Claimant asked for reconsideration of a decision dated April 11, 2023, on September 11, 2025. The Claimant made her request more than 30 days after the decision was communicated to her. The Commission decided the Claimant’s request for reconsideration didn’t meet the requirements set out in the Reconsideration Request Regulations to get an extension of time. Footnote 6 [ 8 ] The Commission decided that there was a reasonable explanation for the delay and that the Claimant had demonstrated a continuing intention to request a reconsideration. Footnote 7 Because the request for reconsideration was filed more than 365 days after the April 11, 2023 decision was communicated, the Commission also examined whether the Claimant’s request had a reasonable chance of success. The Commission decided it did not. That is because the Claimant confirmed she couldn’t legally work in Canada from March 1, 2023, to May 5, 2025. Her benefit period started on March 5, 2023, and ended on March 10, 2024. [ 9 ] The Claimant appealed that decision to the General Division. Footnote 8 The General Division dismissed her appeal. Footnote 9 It decided the Claimant had made her request for reconsideration late. It also decided the Commission exercised its discretion properly when it refused to extend the time to ask for reconsideration. So, the General Division decided it couldn’t interfere with the Commission’s decision. [ 10 ] The Claimant asked for and obtained permission to appeal the General Division’s decision. [ 11 ] At the Appeal Division, the Claimant argues that her hearing at the General Division wasn’t fair. Footnote 10 She also argues that the General Division ignored key evidence. And she argues that the General Division erred in law in re-deciding the matter instead of simply reviewing the Commission’s exercise of discretion. [ 12 ] The Commission argues that the General Division made no errors in its decision. Footnote 11 Preliminary matter I am allowing new evidence [ 13 ] The Claimant submitted two new pieces of evidence to the Appeal Division that were not before the General Division. Footnote 12 [ 14 ] Appendix A is a decision made by the Commission on April 12, 2023, in the Claimant’s [NAME] file. Footnote 13 The Commission allocated earnings in the Claimant’s benefit period starting March 5, 2023. [ 15 ] Appendix B is an excerpt of the Claimant’s [NAME] reports related to the March 5, 2023 claim for benefits. Footnote 14 [ 16 ] Generally, new evidence is not allowed at the Appeal Division. But there are exceptions to this rule. I can accept new evidence if it relates to: procedural fairness background information a lack of evidence before the General Division. Footnote 15 [ 17 ] The Claimant argues that the new evidence should be accepted at the Appeal Division because she had testified about the fact she was able to file her [NAME] reports at the General Division hearing. [ 18 ] The Commission objects to the admission of this new evidence into the Appeal Division record. The Commission says that this new evidence doesn’t fall under any of the three recognized exceptions. [ 19 ] I find that the new evidence falls under the exception of background information. The new evidence is part of the Claimant’s Service Canada file and is part of the administrative record related to her March 5, 2023, [NAME] claim. So, these documents are also in the Commission’s possession. And these documents allow the Appeal Division to have a global view of the Claimant’s application for [NAME] benefits. [ 20 ] Therefore, I am allowing this new evidence into the Appeal Division record. Issues [ 21 ] I must decide the following issues: Did the General Division err in law when it applied the Reconsideration Request Regulations to the Claimant’s request for reconsideration even though it found the Commission acted judicially? If so, what is the appropriate remedy? Analysis [ 22 ] The Appeal Division can intervene if the General Division made one of the following errors: breached the principles of procedural fairness acted beyond its powers or refused to exercise its powers made an error in law based its decision on an important error of fact. Footnote 16 [ 23 ] I only have to identify one error to intervene. The General Division erred in law when it applied the Reconsideration Request Regulations to the Claimant’s request for reconsideration even though it found the Commission acted judicially The General Division correctly set out the legal test for determining whether the Commission acted judicially [ 24 ] The General Division explained the applicable law correctly. The General Division began its analysis by explaining that the Claimant had 30 days to ask the Commission to reconsider its decision. Footnote 17 [ 25 ] Section 112 (1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that a claimant may request a reconsideration within 30 days after the day on which a decision is communicated to them or any further time that the Commission may allow. [ 26 ] The General Division went on to say that the Commission has discretion to allow more time to request a reconsideration, but only if the legal test set out in the Reconsideration Request Regulations (Regulations) is met. Footnote 18 Because the Claimant requested reconsideration more than 365 days after she received the Commission’s decision, she had to meet the following four requirements to get more time: Have a reasonable explanation for the delay Show a continuing intention to request reconsideration Have a reasonable chance of success Show that no prejudice would be caused to the Commission or another party Footnote 19 [ 27 ] The General Division also explained that the decision to allow for more time to request a reconsideration is discretionary. Footnote 20 And therefore, the General Division can only change the Commission’s decision if the Commission didn’t exercise its discretion properly. [ 28 ] The General Division explained what it had to look at to determine if the Commission acted judicially. The Commission didn’t act judicially if it: acted in bad faith or in a discriminatory manner considered irrelevant considerations or failed to consider all relevant factors. Footnote 21 [ 29 ] The legal test the General Division laid out for determining whether the Commission acted judicially is the one the Federal Court of Appeal set out in [NAME] . Footnote 22 [ 30 ] The General Division decided the Commission had exercised its discretion judicially. Footnote 23 The General Division erred in law when it made its own findings about the requirements set out at section 1 of the Regulations, despite deciding the Commission had acted judicially [ 31 ] The General Division applied the Regulations to the Claimant’s request for reconsideration and made findings about the first three criteria set out in section 1 of the Regulations. [ 32 ] The General Division decided that the Claimant had a reasonable explanation for the delay and had a continuing intention to request reconsideration, but that her request for reconsideration didn’t have a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 24 [ 33 ] The General Division then stated that it wasn’t necessary to consider the fourth factor set out in the Regulations (no prejudice to another party) because it had decided the Claimant did not meet the third factor (reasonable chance of success). Footnote 25 [ 34 ] The Commission argues that the General Division simply commented on the three criteria to explain how it assessed whether the Commission had exercised its discretion judicially. It argues that the General Division didn’t base its decision on its analysis of the first three requirements. The Commission cites two Appeal Division decisions that upheld General Division decisions in which findings about the different requirements set out in the Regulations were made. Footnote 26 [ 35 ] It may be that in some cases, the General Division is commenting on the different requirements set out at section 1 of the Regulations in order to assess whether the Commission acted judicially. But the comments should be about how the Commission assessed every requirement. Footnote 27 The General Division is not supposed to reweigh the evidence relevant to every factor, make its own findings and see if they match with the Commission’s. [ 36 ] In the present case, the General Division made specific findings that it could not legally make, such as: “The appellant has satisfied the first 2 factors” Footnote 28 “I therefore find the Appellant has shown she had a reasonable explanation for being late with her request for reconsideration and a continuing intention to pursue reconsideration of the denial of her claim for [NAME] benefits.” Footnote 29 “The Appellant has not satisfied the 3rd factor” Footnote 30 “Unfortunately for the Appellant, her request for reconsideration cannot succeed” Footnote 31 “Without authorization to work in Canada and a valid SIN during her benefit period, there’s no reasonable chance the Appellant can succeed on the substantive issue her request for reconsideration is meant to address.” Footnote 32 “It’s not necessary for me to consider the 4th factor (no prejudice to any party), because a failure to meet any of the factors in the legal test is the end of the analysis”. Footnote 33 [ 37 ] The General Division isn’t supposed to make its own findings about each criterion set out in the Regulations, unless the Commission failed to act judicially. This was determined to be an error of law in a recent Appeal Division decision. Footnote 34 [ 38 ] The General Division found the Commission acted judicially. Therefore, the General Division should not have made its own findings about whether the Claimant met the requirements set out in section 1 of the Regulations. So, the General Division erred in law by assessing the requirements itself, when it is the Commission’s prerogative to do so. [ 39 ] In this case, the General Division should have limited its analysis to paragraphs 44 to 53 where it looked at what the Commission had decided instead of going through its own analysis of the requirements set out in the Regulations. [ 40 ] Because the General Division erred in law, I may intervene to correct this error. The General Division respected the principles of procedural fairness [ 41 ] I have already decided to intervene in the General Division’s decision. So, I don’t need to determine whether any other errors were made by the General Division. That being said, I want to address the Claimant’s allegations that the process before the General Division was unfair. [ 42 ] In her application to the Appeal Division, the Claimant alleged several errors related to natural justice and procedural fairness. The General Division has the duty to act fairly and allow the parties the right to be heard. The General Division didn’t base its decision on an incomplete administrative record [ 43 ] In her application to the Appeal Division, the Claimant says the General Division made its decision with an incomplete administrative record. Footnote 35 She said the notes from calls to Service Canada in early 2023 were missing from the record. The Claimant says that the Commission denied her the chance to gather her evidence. She says there are missing notes in her [NAME] file from 2023. She says this means she didn’t know the case to meet until the process was already in an appeal stage. [ 44 ] At the General Division hearing, the Claimant said that [NAME] contained more documents than what the Commission sent to the Tribunal at GD3. Footnote 36 The General Division member said that she had the documents filed with [NAME] and could look at any documents the Claimant had submitted. Footnote 37 The member said the Claimant would be able to point out which documents she found important during her arguments. [ 45 ] The General Division’s hearing was de novo . This means that the Claimant was able to provide testimony about the calls she made in 2023. The General Division did consider the Claimant’s testimony that she had been given contradictory advice by Service Canada agents. Footnote 38 So the General Division based its decision on the evidence before it. The General Division’s hearing was fair [ 46 ] The Claimant says the hearing was unfair because the Commission didn’t appear before the General Division. Footnote 39 [ 47 ] There is no obligation for a party to an appeal to participate at the hearing. The Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure say that the Tribunal can hold an oral hearing without a party if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the party received the notice of hearing. Footnote 40 In this file, there was no indication that the Commission hadn’t received the notice of hearing. So, the General Division was allowed to proceed with the hearing in the Commission’s absence. [ 48 ] At the hearing, the member explained to the Claimant that the Commission wasn’t expected to appear at the hearing, but that they were a party to the hearing, and they had submitted written arguments. Footnote 41 The General Division cannot compel a party to attend the hearing. So, the Commission’s absence at the hearing did not affect the fairness of the hearing. [ 49 ] The Claimant also argues the hearing wasn’t fair because the General Division member announced at the outset of the hearing that she was dismissing the appeal before hearing the Claimant’s explanation. [ 50 ] I have listened to the recording of the General Division’s hearing attentively and have not found that the General Division prevented the Claimant from being heard. The hearing lasted 43 minutes. The Claimant was able to explain her point of view. The member listened to the Claimant’s arguments at the hearing. She asked her questions to fully understand her position. The member stated at the end of the hearing that she would be dismissing her appeal. Footnote 42 The member issued a written decision after the hearing concluded, as is required by law. Footnote 43 The General Division provided reasons for dismissing the Claimant’s appeal. The Claimant has not shown that had the member taken more time after the hearing, she would have decided anything differently. [ 51 ] I understand that the Claimant disagrees with the member’s assessment of her appeal. But I don’t find that there was a breach of procedural fairness. The doctrine of legitimate expectations doesn’t give the Claimant substantive rights [ 52 ] In the Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division, she says that the doctrine of legitimate expectations means she had the right to clear, consistent and respectful guidance from the Commission. Footnote 44 She said she considered the advice she got in 2023 but because it was contradictory, it was impossible for her to know the case to meet or how to comply with the requirements of the Employment Insurance Act . The Claimant says that she was given abusive and contradictory information from [NAME]. She says this violated natural justice and procedural fairness. [ 53 ] The theory of legitimate expectations applies to procedural rights. It cannot create substantive rights. Footnote 45 What is more, this theory cannot be invoked to circumvent or limit the application of the law. Footnote 46 In the Claimant’s case, she is invoking legitimate expectations to try and obtain her [NAME] benefits. The advice she says she got from Service Canada agents went to a substantive determination of her eligibility to [NAME] benefits as opposed to discussing any specific process she would be entitled to. The constraining case law says that that type of representation cannot create a right to a specific outcome. Remedy [ 54 ] Both parties want me to make the decision that should have been made. Footnote 47 [ 55 ] This is what I will do. The Claimant’s request for reconsideration was late [ 56 ] I am adopting the General Division’s reasons in paragraphs 17 to 31 of its decision. These reasons explain that the Claimant did request reconsideration on September 11, 2025. And that the request was more than 365 days late. Footnote 48 The Commission exercised its discretion judicially [ 57 ] I must determine whether the Commission, in deciding not to grant an extension of time to the Claimant to request a reconsideration, acted judicially. [ 58 ] Acting judicially means acting in good faith, for a proper purpose or motive, and not acting in a discriminatory manner. Footnote 49 The Commission didn’t act judicially if it based its decision on a wrong principle, took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to consider relevant considerations. Footnote 50 [ 59 ] The Claimant believes that the Commission failed to take into account the following factors, that she considers to be relevant: She suffered a car accident in 2013. The processing delays for her application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds were outside her control. She was given misleading information by Commission representatives. [ 60 ] The Commission decided in the Claimant’s favor on 3 of the 4 requirements she had to meet to get an extension of time. The Commission decided: The Claimant had shown a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the reconsideration request. The Claimant had shown she had a continuing intention to request a reconsideration. There would be no prejudice to the Commission or any party if it granted more time to the Claimant to request a reconsideration. Footnote 51 [ 61 ] The only criterion the Claimant did not meet, according to the Commission, was that of a reasonable chance of success. The Commission considered the relevant factors [ 62 ] A review of the record shows that the Commission did consider the relevant factors of the IRCC processing delays and the misleading information the Claimant may have received. [ 63 ] In deciding the Claimant had shown a reasonable explanation for the delay, the Commission considered that the Claimant had pursued a permanent residence application and that this took two years. Footnote 52 It also considered the advice the Claimant had received from Service Canada. Footnote 53 So, the Commission did consider the information that was given to the Claimant and the fact that it took a long time to obtain her permanent residence. [ 64 ] In deciding the Claimant had a continuing intention to request a reconsideration, the Commission considered that she was making efforts to be allowed to work legally in Canada. Footnote 54 [ 65 ] In deciding the Claimant’s request didn’t have a reasonable chance of success, the Commission considered the one relevant factor: that she didn’t have legal authorization to work in Canada during the period in question, from March 1, 2023, to May 5, 2025. Footnote 55 [ 66 ] This fact is not in dispute. Footnote 56 The Claimant recognises she couldn’t legally work in Canada from March 1, 2023, to May 4, 2025. Footnote 57 She also provided evidence that her work permit application was only received by IRCC on May 8, 2025. Footnote 58 [ 67 ] The lack of a work permit is a relevant consideration in assessing the reasonable chance of success of her request for reconsideration. That is because the decision the Claimant is trying to have reconsidered stated that the Claimant could not receive [NAME] benefits as she was unavailable because she didn’t have a legal authorization to work in Canada. [ 68 ] The Appeal Division has rendered many decisions in which it states that not having a work permit essentially eliminates any chance of returning to the workforce. Footnote 59 The Commission didn’t consider any irrelevant factors [ 69 ] I find that the Commission acted judicially when it didn’t consider the Claimant’s car accident that occurred in 2013. [ 70 ] The Commission was aware the Claimant had been in a car accident in 2013. Footnote 60 But it wasn’t relevant to determining whether the Claimant met the requirements to get an extension of time, ten years later. I recognise the Claimant’s car accident must have been a traumatic and very difficult chapter in her life and do not wish to minimize its importance in any way. I do not find, however, that the accident that occurred in 2013 should have been considered to assess the Claimant’s request to reconsider a decision about her availability for work in March 2023. [ 71 ] I find that the Commission considered all the relevant factors and didn’t consider any irrelevant factors. And it didn’t act in bad faith, for an improper purpose or in a discriminatory manner either. [ 72 ] The law was written to allow the Commission to make a discretionary decision on whether to grant more time to request reconsideration of one of its decisions. While I understand that the Claimant thought she would be getting benefits, and she continued to fill out her claim reports, this doesn’t mean that the Commission’s decision was made in a non-judicial manner. [ 73 ] I have found the Commission exercised its discretion judicially and so the Commission’s decision remains unchanged. Conclusion [ 74 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 75 ] The General Division erred in law. [ 76 ] I am making the decision that should have been made. [ 77 ] I have found that the Commission exercised its discretion judicially. So, the Commission’s decision not to give the Claimant more time to request a reconsideration still stands. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the Claimant’s application for benefits at GD3-11. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See the notice of decision at GD3-14. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See the Claimant’s letter at GD3-16. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See the Claimant’s letter at GD3-16. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See the notice of decision at GD3-26. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See the notice of decision at GD3-26. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See the Commission’s notes on its decision at GD3-27. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See the notice of appeal at [NAME]. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See the Claimant’s submissions at AD4-3 and following. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See the Commission’s submissions at AD3-1 and following. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See the appendices at AD4-13. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See appendix A at AD4-13. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See appendix B at AD4-15. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See the Federal Court’s decision [NAME]   v   Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FC  2038 at paragraph 14. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-3 at paragraph 12. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-3 at paragraph 11. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See section 1 of the Reconsideration Request Regulations . Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-4 at paragraph 13. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-4 at paragraph 14. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision Canada (Attorney General)   v   [NAME] , A-694-94. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-8 at paragraphs 44 and following. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-6 at paragraph 32. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-8 at paragraph 43. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See the Appeal Division’s decisions [NAME]   v   [NAME] Commission , 2025  [NAME]  643 and [NAME]  v   [NAME] Commission , 2025  [NAME]  596. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See, for example, AS  v   [NAME] Commission , 2024  [NAME]  1664. In this decision, the General Division looked at every requirement set out at section 1 of the Regulations without making its own findings, but rather, reviewing what the Commission had based its assessment of each factor on. This decision was upheld by the Appeal Division. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-6 at paragraph 32. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-7 at paragraph 35. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-7 at paragraph 36. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-7 at paragraph 36. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-8 at paragraph 41. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-8 at paragraph 43. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See the Appeal Division’s decision AS  v  [NAME] Commission , 2026  [NAME]  187 at paragraph 10. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See the Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division at AD1-2. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 Listen to the recording of the General Division’s hearing at 00:04:56. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 Listen to the recording of the General Division’s hearing at 00:05:30. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-8 at paragraphs 46 to 49. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See the Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division at AD1-3. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See section 58 of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure . Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 Listen to the recording of the General Division’s hearing at 00:01:30. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 Listen to the recording of the General Division’s hearing at 00:39:49. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See section 59(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See the Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division at AD1-3. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See the Supreme Court’s decision [NAME]   v   Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2013  SCC  36 at paragraph 97. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See the Federal Court’s decision [NAME]   v   Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025  FC  1543 at paragraph 28. Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 Section 59(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act states that the Appeal Division can give the decision the General Division should have given. Return to footnote 47 referrer Footnote 48 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-4. Return to footnote 48 referrer Footnote 49 See the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision Canada (Attorney General)   v   Purcell (C.A.), [1996] 1  FC  644. Return to footnote 49 referrer Footnote 50 See 2007  FCA  287 at paragraph 22. Return to footnote 50 referrer Footnote 51 See the Commission’s reasoning at GD3-27. Return to footnote 51 referrer Footnote 52 See the Commission’s reasoning at GD3-27. Return to footnote 52 referrer Footnote 53 See the Commission’s reasoning at GD3-27. Return to footnote 53 referrer Footnote 54 See the Commission’s reasoning at GD3-27. Return to footnote 54 referrer Footnote 55 See the Commission’s reasoning at GD3-27. Return to footnote 55 referrer Footnote 56 See the Claimant’s observations at AD4-7. She states that she couldn’t work from March 1, 2023, to May 5, 2025, due to her immigration status. Return to footnote 56 referrer Footnote 57 Listen to the recording of the General Division’s hearing at 00:35:30. Return to footnote 57 referrer Footnote 58 See the acknowledgement of receipt of the work permit application at GD3-21. Return to footnote 58 referrer Footnote 59 See, for example, the Appeal Division’s decisions [NAME] Commission  v   [NAME] , 2024  [NAME]  836, [NAME] Commission  v  JP , 2024  [NAME]  559, [NAME] Commission   v   [NAME] , 2022  [NAME]

32. Return to footnote 59 referrer Footnote 60 See the notes about a telephone conversation at GD3-24. Return to footnote 60 referrer