Appeal Division Rescinds Overpayment Decision for April 6, 2025

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

Citation: AH  v  [NAME] Commission , 2026  SST  281 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [COUNSEL] under appeal: General Division decision dated December 10, 2025 (GE-25-3139) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: March 24, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: April 2, 2026 File number: AD-26-13 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Remedy Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed in part. [ 2 ] The General Division exceeded its jurisdiction. I am rescinding the part of the General Division decision that relates to the Claimant’s earnings and allocation for the week of April 6, 2025, and the associated overpayment. [ 3 ] I am confirming its decision as it relates to the Commission’s original decision to reconsider paid benefits in May 2025 and to the earnings, allocation, and overpayment for the weeks of April 13, April 20, and April 27, 2025. Overview [ 4 ] [APPELLANT]. is the Appellant. I will call him the Claimant because this application is about his claim for Employment Insurance ( EI benefits). The Respondent is the [NAME] Commission, which I will call the Commission. [ 5 ] The [APPELLANT] collected EI benefits beginning in December 2024. He continued to claim EI benefits after he returned to work in April 2025, but he did not report his employment income. When he realized he had not reported his earnings, he called the Commission to explain his mistake. The Commission allocated the earnings reported by the Claimant and applied them against weeks of benefits in the period between April 13 and May 3, 2025. It declared an overpayment of benefits for those weeks. The Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider but it would not change its decision. [ 6 ] Later, the Commission received additional evidence from the employer which suggested that the [APPELLANT] started work earlier than he had thought. The Commission determined that the Claimant had also received earnings in the week of April 6, 2025. It allocated those earnings to the same week of benefits. This increased the total of the amount that the Claimant would have to repay. [ 7 ] The [APPELLANT] appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal. The General Division agreed with the Commission that the Claimant had to repay the total overpayment resulting from both allocations, and it dismissed his appeal. The Claimant appealed the General Division decision to the Appeal Division. [ 8 ] I am allowing the appeal in part. The General Division did not have jurisdiction to consider the Claimant’s earnings, allocation, or overpayment for the week of April 6, 2025, so I am rescinding its decision on these matters. I have made the decision the General Division should have made, and I have confirmed only that part of its decision that relates to the Commission’s original decision in May 2025 to reconsider benefits paid, and to the earnings and allocation for the weeks of April 13, April 20, and April 27, 2025, and the resulting overpayment. Issues [ 9 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Did the General Division make an error of fact by failing to consider evidence that the Claimant did not intentionally mislead the Commission about his earnings and that it was he who corrected the Commission about his unreported earnings? b) Did the General Division act in a way that was procedurally unfair by not accommodating the Claimant’s language barrier? c) Did the General Division exceed its jurisdiction by considering the allocation in the week of April 6, 2025, and its associated overpayment? Analysis General principles for appeals to the Appeal Division [ 10 ] The Appeal Division may only consider errors that fall within one of the following grounds of appeal: a) The General Division hearing process was not fair in some way. b) The General Division did not decide an issue that it should have decided. Or, it decided something it did not have the power to decide (error of jurisdiction). c) The General Division made an error of law when making its decision. d) The General Division based its decision on an important error of fact. Footnote 1 Error of fact [ 11 ] I will address the [APPELLANT] argument about the General Division’s error of fact first, because this was his main concern. [ 12 ] The General Division did not make an error of fact. [ 13 ] The [APPELLANT] argued that the General Division did not consider his evidence that he did not mean to misreport his earnings, and that he was the one who informed the Commission about the earnings. [ 14 ] The [APPELLANT] wanted the General Division to reduce or write off the payments. He explained to the General Division that his employer did not pay him immediately, so he had had no income for a period. He said he did not originally report those earnings because he did not know he had to report earnings that he had not yet received. He also explained that he had called the Commission to tell them about the earnings. He was willing to repay some of the overpayment when he talked to the Commission, but they told him he had to pay the full amount. [ 15 ] The General Division may not have referred to all of the circumstances that explained how the [APPELLANT] originally claimed benefits without reporting income, or how the Commission learned of his earnings. But it did not have to. None of this evidence was relevant to the issues that were before the General Division. [ 16 ] An error of fact arises when the General Division has based its decision on a finding that ignores or misunderstands relevant evidence, or on a finding that does not follow rationally from the evidence. Footnote 2 [ 17 ] The General Division decision was not based on any finding that relied on its understanding of the circumstances mentioned by the Claimant. It needed only to decide whether the Commission had acted properly when it reconsidered the benefits it had paid the Claimant, whether the Claimant had earnings, and whether they were correctly allocated. The [APPELLANT] did not dispute that the Commission acted properly when it reconsidered. He told the General Division that he agreed that his wages in these weeks were earnings. He also agreed that the Commission had the right to allocate his wages against his benefits in the weeks that he was working. [ 18 ] Whether the [APPELLANT] knew or should have known that he needed to report his earnings in the weeks that they were earned (and not paid to him), and the way in which he came forward to tell the Commission about his earnings was not relevant to what the General Division needed to decide. That evidence would likely have been relevant if the Commission had decided to impose a penalty for false statements on his claim reports. But the Commission did not impose any penalty in this case, and this was not an issue that was before the General Division. [ 19 ] The circumstances that resulted in the overpayment may also have been relevant to a write-off of the overpayment. But, as the General Division noted, it did not have the ability to write off or reduce his payment. Only the Commission (or the Canadian Revenue Agency) may decide whether to grant a write-off. Such decisions may not be appealed to the General Division. Footnote 3 [ 20 ] The General Division did not make an error of fact by overlooking or misunderstanding the [APPELLANT] circumstances. Procedural fairness [ 21 ] The [APPELLANT] said that the General Division acted in a way that was procedurally unfair because of his language barrier. He says that he has difficulty in English, and he did not have an interpreter at the General Division. He added that he asked the Commission to remove the interest charge. [ 22 ] I presume that the [APPELLANT] argument is that he was not able to communicate to the General Division what he wanted to say about the interest. He told the Appeal Division that the Commission sent him a letter about the overpayment that included interest charges, and that he had asked the Commission to remove the interest and it refused. He told the General Division only that he had been willing to pay part of what they were asking for, without specifying that he disagreed with the interest. [ 23 ] I do not find that the General Division acted in a way that was procedurally unfair by failing to accommodate the Claimant’s difficulty in English. [ 24 ] The Notice of Appeal to the General Division asks appellants if they want the Tribunal to provide an interpreter. When the [APPELLANT] completed his Notice of Appeal, he did not indicate that he needed an interpreter. In fact. he requested that the hearing be held in either French or English. The General Division hearing proceeded in English. [ 25 ] I have listened to the audio of the General Division hearing. The Claimant does not speak English fluently, but he seemed to be comfortable with the proceedings. If he was unable to express himself in English or to understand what the member was saying, it was not apparent to me. He engaged with the member, expressed his concerns intelligibly, and responded appropriately to her questions. At no point, did he seem frustrated. He did not ask the member for an interpreter or any other assistance or accommodation. [ 26 ] In any event, the only specific concern the [APPELLANT] expressed about his language barrier was that he had not conveyed his willingness to repay the overpayment minus the interest charge. Even if I accepted that the Claimant could not communicate what he wanted to say about interest, it did not result in any unfairness because it could not have changed the decision result. [ 27 ] The Claimant conceded the amount of the overpayment before the General Division. Under the law, overpayments are debts owing to the Crown. Footnote 4 The Employment Insurance Regulations (Regulations) authorize the Commission to charge interest on debts owed to the Crown. Footnote 5 So, when the General Division said that it could not consider write-offs of debts, this meant that it could not include write-offs of the interest on debts as well. [ 28 ] The General Division process did not mean that the Claimant did not have a fair chance to be heard. It did not make an error of procedural fairness. Error of jurisdiction [ 29 ] The General Division made an error of jurisdiction. [ 30 ] An error of jurisdiction is where the General Division fails to make a decision that it is required to make, or where it makes a decision that it is not authorized to make. [ 31 ] The General Division is required to consider all the issues that are on appeal. The only kind of decision that may be appealed to the General Division is the Commission’s reconsideration decision. So, the General Division has jurisdiction to consider issues that arise from the reconsideration decision. Footnote 6 [ 32 ] On May 5, 2025, the Claimant reported that his earnings for the weeks of April 13, 2025, April 20, 2025, and April 27, 2025, after he had received benefits for those weeks. Footnote 7 The Commission accepted that these amounts were earnings and allocated them to the weeks in which they were earned. This resulted in an overpayment. According to the Commission’s notes, it told the Claimant about its overpayment decision and his reconsideration rights in the same May 5 telephone call. Footnote 8 The Commission issued a Notice of Debt for the overpayment on May 10, 2025, in the amount of $2,004.00. Footnote 9 [ 33 ] The Claimant asked that the Commission reconsider, but it would not change its decision. The Commission issued its reconsideration decision on July 29, 2025, which maintained the overpayment decision that it says it made on May 2, 2025. Footnote 10 This decision implicitly includes the Commission’s decisions that the Claimant’s wages were earnings and subject to allocation in the weeks in which they were earned. [ 34 ] Later on, the Commission obtained information from the employer that the Claimant started work on April 6, 2025, a week earlier than he had reported. The employer’s information indicated that the [APPELLANT] had additional earnings in that week. As part of its investigation, the Commission asked the Claimant about this new information. The [APPELLANT] agreed that he had earnings in that week, and with the amount, and added a request that the Commission reconsider. The Commission issued a new Notice of Debt on October 22, 2025, for $668.00. [ 35 ] The General Division found that the Commission correctly allocated earnings in all the weeks in question, including the week beginning April 6, 2025. It confirmed that the Claimant’s total overpayment was $2,672.00 which included the original $2,004.00 overpayment and the new $668.00 overpayment. [ 36 ] The Commission concedes that the General Division exceeded its jurisdiction when it included the allocation for the week of April 6, 2025, and the additional $668.00 overpayment. [ 37 ] I agree. The Commission adjudicated the additional allocation and overpayment after it had issued its July 29, 2025, reconsideration decision. When it asked the Claimant in August about the employer’s information, it was investigating. It had not yet made a decision, so the Claimant’s “request for reconsideration” in response, can only have been a plea to take his circumstances into account as it makes its decision. [ 38 ] The Commission issued a new Notice of Debt on October 22, 2025, after it completed its investigation, but it did not receive a request for reconsideration of that decision, nor issue a new reconsideration decision. The overpayment represented by the new Notice of Debt and the circumstances giving rise to this second overpayment amount were never reconsidered. [ 39 ] The General Division exceeded its jurisdiction. It should not have considered the allocation for the week of April 6, 2025, nor the overpayment related to that allocation, because these matters had not been subject to a reconsideration. Remedy [ 40 ] Because I have found that the General Division made an error in its decision, I must consider how best to provide a remedy. I have the power to send the matter back to the General Division to reconsider, or I may make the decision that the General Division should have made. I may also confirm, rescind, or vary the General Decision in whole or in part Footnote 11 [ 41 ] The Claimant asks that I make the decision that the General Division should have made. Footnote 12 The Commission believes I should send it back to the General Division to sort out. [ 42 ] I have decided that I have all the information that I need to decide what I need to decide. There is no reason to send it back to the General Division. [ 43 ] I am rescinding that part of the General Division decision in which it confirms that the Claimant had earnings in the week of April 6, 2025, the amount and allocation of those earnings, the $668.00 overpayment associated with that allocation. [ 44 ] None of these matters were properly before the General Division. [ 45 ] I have found no other error in the General Division decision. I confirm its decision that the Commission was in time, when it first reconsidered the Claimant’s earnings and allocation on May 10, 2025, and that it acted judicially in doing so. I confirm that the Claimant is obligated to repay the overpayment amount of $2,004.00 resulting from the Commission’s allocation of earnings in those weeks. [ 46 ] The Claimant had not disputed that he was paid wages he was paid in the weeks of April 13, April 20, and April 27, 2025, the amount of his wages, or the characterization of those wages as earnings. Nor did he dispute how they were allocated. So, I confirm that those amounts were earnings and correctly allocated. [ 47 ] The General Division was also correct that it had no power (or jurisdiction) to write off or reduce the overpayment, and I do not have that power either. Conclusion [ 48 ] The appeal is allowed in part. [ 49 ] I am rescinding the General Division’s decision that relates to the Claimant’s earnings and allocation and overpayment that relates to the week of April 6, 2025, for want of jurisdiction. [ 50 ] I am confirming its decision as it relates to the Commission’s May 2025 reconsideration of benefits paid, and to the earnings and allocation for the weeks of April 13, April 20, and April 27, 2025, and the resulting overpayment. [ 51 ] It is open to the [APPELLANT] to seek a reconsideration of the Commission’s decision or decisions taken in relation to the allocation of earnings and overpayment for the week of April 6, 2025. He is technically out of time to do so at this point, but the Commission may be willing to consider his request given the circumstances. Footnotes Footnote 1 This is a plain-language version of the three grounds. The full text is in section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESDA ). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 I have tried to make this error more understandable. This ground of appeal is defined in section 58(1)(c) of the DESDA : The General Division will have made an error of fact where it, “based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.” Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See section 112.1 and section 113 of the Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act). Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 47 of the EI Act. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 56.1 of the Regulations. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 113 of the EI Act. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 GD3-14. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD3-16. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See GD3-17. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD3-23. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See section 59(1) of the DESDA . Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See AD7-7. Return to footnote 12 referrer