Appeal Dismissed for Being Filed Too Late - Social Security Tribunal

Citation: [NAME]  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  64 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated January 16, 2026 (GE-26-167) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 30, 2026 File number: AD-26-46 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. The appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] J. B. is the Claimant. He applied for Employment Insurance regular benefits when he stopped working. [ 3 ] On October 2, 2024, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that the Claimant was disqualified from getting benefits because he lost his job due to his own misconduct. Footnote 1 This is often called a “reconsideration decision.” [ 4 ] The Claimant appealed the Commission’s reconsideration decision to the General Division on January 14, 2026. [ 5 ] The General Division found the Commission’s reconsideration decision was communicated to the Claimant on October 2, 2024. It found that his appeal was filed to the General Division more than one year after it was communicated to him, so it could not proceed. Footnote 2 [ 6 ] The Claimant wants permission to appeal. He argues that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process and made jurisdictional, legal and factual errors. Footnote 3 [ 7 ] I am denying permission to appeal because the Claimant’s arguments don’t show that he has an arguable case upon which the appeal might succeed. So, I can’t give him permission to appeal. Footnote 4 Issue [ 8 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process and made jurisdictional, legal and factual errors when it decided that the Claimant’s appeal could not proceed because it was filed too late? Analysis [ 9 ] I can consider four types of errors, and they include a failure to follow a fair process, jurisdictional, legal, and important factual errors. Footnote 5 [ 10 ] I can only give the Claimant permission to appeal if there’s an “arguable case” that the General Division made an error that gives his appeal a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 6 [ 11 ] The Claimant set out his reasons for appealing and submitted a number of documents to the Appeal Division. Footnote 7 I wrote to the Claimant and asked whether he intended to submit any further documents before I decided his leave application. Footnote 8 He wrote back confirming his final submission. Footnote 9 [ 12 ] In addition to reviewing all of the Claimant’s arguments and documents, I also reviewed the General Division’s decision and the file record. I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal The Claimant’s arguments to the Appeal Division [ 13 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process and made jurisdictional, legal and factual errors. Footnote 10 [ 14 ] The Claimant says that the Commission’s “new” decision was communicated to him on March 9, 2025, so the one-year time limit had not expired when he submitted his appeal to the General Division on January 15, 2026. He submitted screenshots of his “My Service Canada Account”. Footnote 11 [ 15 ] The Claimant argues that if the General Division had considered his submission and the Service Canada logs, it would have seen evidence contradicting the communication date. Because of that, he submits that he was denied the right to be heard and any delay was due to personal hardship and homelessness. Footnote 12 [ 16 ] Finally, he submits that there are numerous inconsistencies and misinformation in the documents relating to the misconduct issue. Footnote 13 He now has evidence from his former supervisor that shows the true reason for his dismissal was a personal conflict with the owner. Footnote 14 A letter from his employer dated February 1, 2024, which he says shows that his employer was aware of his medical condition. Footnote 15 He also submitted a recent letter from X dated January 26, 2026, which says he has been accessing the shelter on a regular basis. Footnote 16 I am not accepting the new evidence submitted by the Claimant [ 17 ] I find that the Claimant submitted new evidence, specifically, the documents outlined in paragraph 16 above. I reviewed the record and none of these documents were before the General Division. [ 18 ] The Appeal Division generally doesn’t accept new evidence. Footnote 17 This is because the Appeal Division isn’t the fact finder or rehearing the case. It’s a review of the General Division’s decision based on the same evidence. Footnote 18 There are some exceptions, but the evidence he submitted doesn’t meet any of them. Footnote 19 [ 19 ] I’m not accepting the Claimant’s new evidence because it isn’t general background information, it doesn’t show that the Tribunal acted unfairly and doesn’t highlight findings made without supporting evidence. This means I won’t consider the Claimant’s new evidence when making my decision. The General Division’s jurisdiction comes from a reconsideration decision that has been appealed to the Tribunal [ 20 ] The law says that a person can ask the Commission to reconsider a decision within 30 days after the date on which a decision is communicated to them or, any further time that the Commission may allow. Footnote 20 [ 21 ] It also says that a person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Commission, including a decision in relation to further time to make a request may appeal the decision to the Tribunal. Footnote 21 [ 22 ] The Commission in this case decided that the Claimant was disqualified from getting benefits on October 2, 2024, because he lost his job due to his own misconduct. Footnote 22 And that was the decision the Claimant appealed to the General Division of the Tribunal. Footnote 23 The General Division had to first decide when the Commission’s reconsideration decision was communicated to the Claimant [ 23 ] An appeal must be brought to the General Division within 30 days after the day that it is communicated to a person. Footnote 24 The law allows for an extension of time, but an appeal cannot be brought more than one year after the day on which the reconsideration decision is communicated to that person. Footnote 25 [ 24 ] The General Division in this case had to first decide when the Commission’s reconsideration decision was communicated to the Claimant. Once that communication date was established, then the 30-day period to file his appeal to the General Division and one-year deadline starts to count from the following day. The General Division found that his appeal to the General Division was more than one year late, so it could not proceed [ 25 ] The General Division decided that the Commission’s reconsideration decision was communicated to the Claimant on October 2, 2024. That was the date the Claimant wrote he received the reconsideration decision. Footnote 26 [ 26 ] The General Division also found that the Claimant had filed his appeal to the Tribunal on January 14, 2026. Footnote 27 It concluded that the appeal was brought more than one year after the reconsideration decision was communicated to him. Footnote 28 [ 27 ] The General Division concluded that it was required to apply the law which states that in no case may an appeal be brought more than one year after the reconsideration decision was communicated. Footnote 29 There is no arguable case that the General Division made any jurisdictional errors [ 28 ] The General Division’s decision shows that it only decided the issues it had the power to decide and didn’t decide any issues it had no power to decide. There is no arguable case that the General Division made any jurisdictional errors in its decision. Footnote 30 [ 29 ] The General Division addressed the late appeal issue before it. After establishing that the Commission’s reconsideration decision was communicated to the Claimant on October 2, 2024, and his appeal was filed January 14, 2026, it concluded that his appeal was filed over one year late after the decision was communicated. As a result, the General Division wasn’t required to address the underlying issue related to misconduct. [ 30 ] The Claimant wrote in his appeal forms to the General Division that he received his reconsideration decision on October 2, 2024, but he also wrote January 9, 2026. Footnote 31 [ 31 ] The General Division didn’t address the January 9, 2026, date in its written decision, but it wasn’t necessary to do so in this case. The January 9, 2026, date appears to refer to another Commission decision that wasn’t before the General Division. [ 32 ] The Claimant included a copy of the Commission’s decision dated January 9, 2026, in his appeal to the General Division. Footnote 32 That decision letter says the Commission can’t reconsider the decision to refer or not to refer a person to a program or other employment activity. [ 33 ] The Claimant now argues before the Appeal Division that the Commission’s decision letters dated October 2, 2024, and January 9, 2026, both deal with the underlying application and claim for benefits. He submits that “these documents should be reviewed as a single and continuous record for this appeal.” Footnote 33 [ 34 ] I disagree. The Commission’s decision on October 2, 2024, and January 9, 2026, are two separate decisions about different legal issues. The only reconsideration decision that was appealed to the General Division was the one dated October 2, 2024. [ 35 ] As well, I note that the Commissions’ decision on January 9, 2026, cannot be appealed to the General Division. Footnote 34 [ 36 ] I see no arguable case that the General Division made any jurisdictional errors. It correctly determined that it had to decide the late appeal issue, and once it determined the appeal was filed too late, it could not deal with the underlying misconduct issue. And it had no jurisdiction to decide the other legal issue related to a referral to a program or other employment activity. There is no arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process [ 37 ] The General Division didn’t deny the Claimant his right to be heard. It determined that his appeal was statute-barred because it was filed too late after the Commission’s decision was communicated to him, so by law it could not proceed. [ 38 ] The Claimant asserts that he was and is experiencing homelessness, so that restricted his access to mail and administrative resources, and he didn’t get a chance to disclose these “mitigating circumstances” which effectively impacted his ability to participate at the General Division hearing. [ 39 ] The General Division has no discretion to extend the one-year deadline even in compassionate circumstances. That discretion is only available when an appeal has been filed more than 30 days late, but under one year (after the day the decision is communicated), then it could have considered an extension of time if he had a reasonable explanation for the delay. Footnote 35 I see no arguable case that it didn’t follow a fair process. Footnote 36 There is no arguable case that the General Division made any legal errors [ 40 ] The General Division correctly stated and applied the law in its decision. Footnote 37 The law is strict and doesn’t allow an appeal to proceed if it’s been filed after more than one year the reconsideration decision was communicated. I see no arguable case that it made a legal error either. Footnote 38 There is no arguable case that the General Division made any important factual errors [ 41 ] I also see no arguable case that the General Division based its decision on any important factual errors when it decided the communication date was October 2, 2024. Footnote 39 That was the date he indicated that he received the Commission’s written decision. Footnote 40 And his appeal was only filed to the General Division of the Tribunal on January 14, 2026. Footnote 41 [ 42 ] The General Division’s key findings are consistent with the evidence. I reviewed the file, examined the decision under appeal and didn’t find any key evidence that the General Division might have ignored or misinterpreted. Footnote 42 Conclusion [ 43 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division made any reviewable errors when it determined that his appeal was made more than one year after the Commission’s reconsideration was communicated to him. [ 44 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. It has no reasonable chance of success. Footnotes Footnote 1 See Commission’s initial and reconsideration decision at pages GD3-28 and GD3-45. Also see, sections 30(1) and 112 of the Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See General Division decision at pages AD1-9 to AD1-11. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See pages AD1-1 to AD1-7. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2016  FC  11 at paragraph 12 and sections 56(1) and 58(2) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See pages AD1-4; AD1-13 to AD1-17; AD1A-1 to AD1A-2; AD1B-1 to AD1B-14; AD1C-1 to AD1C-5 and AD3-1 to AD3-7. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See pages AD2-1 to AD2-3. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See pages AD3-1 to AD3-7. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See page AD1-4. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See pages AD1-13 to AD1-16. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See page AD1-1. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See page AD1A-1. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See page AD1-1; AD1B-11 and AD1C-4. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See pages AD3-3 to AD3-4. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See pages AD1C-5. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General),  2015  FC  1300 at paragraphs 29 and 34; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General),  2017  FC  354 at paragraph 23. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General),  2019  FCA  256 at paragraph 13. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 [NAME]  v   Canada (Attorney General),  2018  FCA  48 and  [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2022  FCA  157 at paragraphs 37–39. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See section 112 (1) of the  EI  Act. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See section 113 of the  EI  Act. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See pages GD3-28 and GD3-45. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See pages GD2-1 to GD2-21. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See section 52(1)(a) of the  DESD  Act and section 24(3) of the  Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure  ( SST  Rules). Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See section 52(2) of the  DESD  Act and section 27 of the  SST  Rules . Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See paragraph 11 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See paragraph 12 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See paragraph 13 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See paragraphs 14 and 16 of the General Division decision and section 52(2) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See section 58(1)(a) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See page GD2-17. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See pages GD2-6 to GD2-7. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See page GD2-18. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 Section 25(2) of the  EI  Act says that the Commission cannot reconsider its own decisions on training referrals under section 112 of the  EI  Act, and that training referral decisions cannot be appealed to the General Division under section 113 on the EI Act. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See section 37 of the SST Rules and section 52 of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See section 58(1)(a) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See paragraphs 5 and 14 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See section 58(1)(b) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See page GD2-17. The evidence shows that he was also told verbally about the decision on September 27, 2024, see page GD3-43. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See pages GD2-1 to GD2-21 and section 19(2) of the SST Rules. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General ), 2016  FC  615, which recommends doing such a review. Return to footnote 42 referrer