Appeal Denied for Overpayment Recovery of Employment Insurance Benefits

[TRANSLATION] Citation: PM  v  Canada [NAME] Commission , 2026  SST  156 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated January 20, 2026 (GE‑25‑3476) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: March 4, 2026 File number: AD-26-114 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead. Overview [ 2 ] Between November and December 2019, the Claimant received [NAME] ( EI ) benefits. He worked for a few weeks during that period. The employer ended his employment because he didn’t meet the job requirements. It issued a Record of Employment ( ROE ) saying that the Claimant was paid $3,739.58. [ 3 ] In March 2023, the Commission asked the Claimant to explain the difference between the income earned and the income reported in his benefit claims. The Claimant stated that he didn’t remember those statements and asked for proof that he had actually made them. In January 2025, the Commission contacted the Claimant again about his statements. [ 4 ] In March 2025, the Commission asked him to pay back the benefits that had been overpaid. It imposed a penalty and a notice of violation for making false statements. The Claimant disagreed and appealed to the Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] The General Division noted that the Commission cancelled the penalty imposed on the Claimant and the notice of violation. It found that the Claimant reported receiving no income for the week of November 17, 2019, and $19 for the week of December 15, 2019. The employer stated that the Claimant worked during those weeks. He received $831.25 for the week starting November 17, 2019, $456 for the week starting December 15, 2019, and $143.83 in vacation pay. [ 6 ] The General Division found that the Claimant was paid for each of the weeks in dispute. Those earnings had to be allocated to each of the weeks in question. It decided that the Commission used its discretion judicially when it reconsidered the Claimant’s claim. [ 7 ] The Claimant is asking the Appeal Division for permission to appeal the General Division decision. He argues that the General Division didn’t consider the reason for his appeal. He argues that the Commission provided only a text screen and never provided the statements he allegedly made—the ones that led to the amount to be paid back. [ 8 ] I have to decide whether there is an arguable case that the General Division made a reviewable error based on which the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. [ 9 ] I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal. Issue [ 10 ] Does the Claimant’s appeal have a reasonable chance of success based on a reviewable error the General Division may have made? Analysis [ 11 ] The law specifies the only grounds of appeal of a General Division decision. Footnote 1 These reviewable errors are the following: The General Division hearing process wasn’t fair in some way. The General Division didn’t decide an issue that it should have decided. Or, it decided something it didn’t have the power to decide. The General Division based its decision on an important error of fact. The General Division made an error of law when making its decision. [ 12 ] An application for permission to appeal is a preliminary step to a hearing on the merits. It is an initial hurdle for the Claimant to meet, but it is lower than the one that has to be met at the hearing of the appeal on the merits. At the permission to appeal stage, the Claimant doesn’t have to prove his case; he has to instead establish that his appeal has a reasonable chance of success. This means that he has to show that there is arguably a reviewable error based on which the appeal might succeed. [ 13 ] I will give permission to appeal if I am satisfied that at least one of the Claimant’s stated grounds of appeal gives the appeal a reasonable chance of success. I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal [ 14 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division didn’t consider the reason for his appeal. He argues that the Commission provided only a text screen and never provided the statements he allegedly made—the ones that led to the amount to be paid back. [ 15 ] The issue before the General Division was about the allocation of earnings under sections 35 and 36 of the [NAME] . [ 16 ] To answer the questions asked in his online electronic reports, the Claimant had to successfully complete the required identification using his personal access code. He did that. The answers he provided were then sent to the central system when he clicked [translation] “I accept” on the final page, [translation] “Claimant’s Report – Summary.” Footnote 2 [ 17 ] An authorized representative certified that the document filed in this case—containing the questions and the Claimant’s answers from his online electronic reports—was created for the purpose of keeping a permanent record of his online reports. [ 18 ] In other words, the document accurately reflects the questions and the Claimant’s answers for the periods of November 10 to 23, 2019, and December 15 to 28, 2019. Footnote 3 [ 19 ] In any proceedings under the [NAME] Act  ( EI  Act) or its regulations, a print that is from a document in electronic form made by the Commission for the purpose of keeping a permanent record of a document, and is certified by the Commission or a person employed in the administration of the EI  Act, is admissible in evidence for all purposes for which the recorded document would be admitted as evidence in the proceedings. Footnote 4 [ 20 ] So, the General Division made no reviewable error by accepting as evidence the documents the Commission provided showing the Claimant’s electronic reports for the periods from November 10 to 23, 2019, and from December 15 to 28, 2019. Footnote 5 [ 21 ] I note that the employer issued a ROE . Footnote 6 It says that the Claimant was paid $3,739.58. [ 22 ] In June 2020, the Commission asked the employer for more information. It confirmed that the Claimant received $831.25 for the week starting November 17, 2019, $456 for the week starting December 15, 2019, and $143.83 in vacation pay. Footnote 7 [ 23 ] The employer also provided a letter stating that the last day the Claimant worked was December 18, 2019. Footnote 8 [ 24 ] As the General Division decided, the Claimant’s earnings had to be allocated from November 17 to 23, 2019, and from December 15 to 21, 2019. The applicable rates were $831 and $456, respectively. Footnote 9 Because the Claimant received $467 in benefits for each of the weeks in question, this resulted in $667 in benefits being overpaid. Footnote 10 [ 25 ] Case law says that a claimant can’t meet their burden of proof just by casting doubt on the employer’s information. It was up to the Claimant to show before the General Division that the amounts the employer reported were wrong. He didn’t do that. Footnote 11 [ 26 ] After reviewing the appeal file, the General Division decision, and the arguments in support of the application for permission to appeal, I am of the view that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. The Claimant hasn’t raised any issue that could justify setting aside the decision under review. Conclusion [ 27 ] Permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD3-24 to GD3-27. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD3-23. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 134 of the [NAME] Act  ( EI  Act). Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD3-10 to GD3-23. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD3-28. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See GD3-31 and GD3-32. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD3-33. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 36(4) of the EI  Act. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD3-53. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD3-35 and GD3-36. The Claimant stated that he disagreed with the information the employer provided but didn’t provide any evidence to show otherwise. Return to footnote 11 referrer