Appeal Denied: Timing Issues Prevent Claimant's Case from Proceeding

Citation: AS  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  [NAME]  16 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated January 5, 2026 (GE-25-3505) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 15, 2026 File number: AD-26-16 On this page Decision Overview Issue I am not giving the Applicant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. The appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] A. S. is the Applicant. She applied for Employment Insurance ( EI ) benefits in October 2020. The Applicant received EI benefits. In approximately 2022, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided the Applicant wasn’t entitled to the benefits she received. This created an overpayment and the Applicant was asked to pay back benefits. [ 3 ] In April 2023, the Applicant asked the Commission to reconsider its position. The Applicant explained her delay was because she moved and was out of the Country for a time. So, she didn’t receive the Commission’s decision letter. [ 4 ] The Commission accepted the Applicant’s late reconsideration request. On May 26, 2023, the Commission refused to change its position. [ 5 ] The Applicant then appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal) General Division on December 15, 2025. The General Division decided the Applicant appealed more than 365 days after she received the Commission’s reconsideration decision. The General Division said this meant the Applicant was statute barred from appealing to the Tribunal. [ 6 ] The Applicant has asked for permission to appeal the General Division’s decision. I am denying the Applicant’s request for permission to appeal because there is no reasonable chance of success. Issue [ 7 ] The issue in this appeal is: Is there an arguable case the General Division made an important error of fact when it denied the Applicant’s appeal because it was too late? I am not giving the Applicant permission to appeal [ 8 ] There are only certain grounds of appeal that the Appeal Division can consider. Footnote 1 Briefly, it has to be shown that the General Division did one of the following: It acted unfairly in some way. It decided an issue it shouldn’t have, or didn’t decide an issue it should have. It made an error of law. It based its decision on an important error of fact. [ 9 ] So, for the Applicant’s appeal to go ahead, I have to find there is a reasonable chance of success on any one of those grounds. There is no arguable case the General Division made an important error of fact when it denied the Applicant’s appeal because it was too late [ 10 ] The Applicant says the General Division made an error of fact. An error of fact happens when the General Division makes its decision based on an erroneous (wrong) finding of fact that was “made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it”. Footnote 2 This means the General Division had to ignore, misunderstand or overlook the evidence in some way. [ 11 ] The error the Applicant seems to be suggesting is that the General Division didn’t consider her personal hardship. She says she was dealing with this hardship when she received the Commission’s reconsideration letter. Footnote 3 [ 12 ] On July 13, 2022, the Commission sent the Applicant a letter stating that she wasn’t entitled to the EI benefits she received. Footnote 4 The Applicant asked the Commission to reconsider their decision on April 13, 2023. Footnote 5 The Applicant explained her delay was because she moved and was out of the Country for a time so she didn’t receive the Commission’s decision letter. [ 13 ] The Commission accepted the Applicant’s late reconsideration request. This means the Applicant’s delay in requesting this reconsideration isn’t an issue. On May 26, 2023, the Commission refused to change its position. The Commission’s file says it told this information to the Applicant orally on a phone call and sent the Applicant a letter confirming the conversation. Footnote 6 [ 14 ] The Applicant waited until December 15, 2025, to appeal the Commission’s decision to the Tribunal’s General Division. The General Division found the Commission told the Applicant about its decision on May 26, 2023, and sent a letter to the Applicant. Footnote 7 [ 15 ] The General Division decided the Applicant filed her appeal to the Tribunal on December 15, 2025. Footnote 8 The General Division decided this was more than a year after the Applicant received the Commission’s decision and that the law doesn’t allow the appeal to move forward. Footnote 9 [ 16 ] The Applicant argues she wasn’t “capable of understanding and acting on that decision at the time”. Footnote 10 She says the General Division didn’t consider this important fact. [ 17 ] Unfortunately, after a year has passed, the Applicant’s reason for the delay isn’t relevant. The Applicant isn’t disputing the General Division’s finding that her appeal to the Tribunal was more than a year late. Footnote 11 The General Division had no authority to grant the Applicant additional time to file in these circumstances. The law says an application can’t move forward for any reason if more than one year has passed since the decision was communicated. [ 18 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact on this issue. The General Division found it had been more than a year since the decision was communicated to the Applicant. So, it had no authority to consider a person’s reason for being late when more than a year has passed. There are no additional errors in the General Division decision [ 19 ] Because the Applicant is self-represented, I reviewed the file, and looked at the decision the Applicant is appealing. I haven’t found any reviewable error that the General Division may have made. Footnote 12 Conclusion [ 20 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 58(1)(c) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See AD1-3, the Applicant’s Application to the Appeal Division. It is also noted that the Applicant accepts that she received the Commission’s reconsideration letter in May 2023 and that the March 2025 she noted was an error. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD3-51 of the Commission’s Reconsideration File. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD3-53 of the Commission’s Reconsideration File. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD3-66 and GD3-67 of the Commission’s Reconsideration File. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See the General Division decision at paragraph 6. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See the General Division decision at paragraph 7. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 8 and 9. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See AD1-3, the Applicant’s Application to the Appeal Division. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 In other words, the appeal was filed more than a year after the Commission communicated its reconsideration decision to the Applicant. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 The Federal Court has said I must do this in decisions like [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  874 and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 12 referrer