Appeal for Additional Sickness Benefits Dismissed

[TRANSLATION] Citation: [NAME] v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  39 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Employment Insurance Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: Canada Employment Insurance Commission reconsideration decision (758779) dated October 6, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In writing Decision date: January 7, 2026 File number: GE-25-3335 On this page Decision Overview Matter I have to consider first Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Claimant was paid the maximum number of weeks of sickness benefits that he is entitled to. He was paid 26 weeks of Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) sickness benefits. That is the maximum number of weeks of sickness benefits under the Act. Footnote 1 Overview [ 3 ] The Claimant applied for [NAME]  sickness benefits starting February 2, 2025. [ 4 ] The Commission told the Claimant that it could not pay him [NAME]  sickness benefits starting August 11, 2025, because it had already paid the maximum 26 weeks of sickness benefits. [ 5 ] The Claimant says that he was unable to provide some medical reports because of the postal strike. He believes that these documents would have changed the Commission’s decision. Footnote 2 Matter I have to consider first The Claimant asked for a hearing in writing [ 6 ] The Claimant asked for the hearing to be held in writing. I accepted his request and told him that the appeal can be decided based on the information on file. Footnote 3 Issue [ 7 ] Is the Claimant entitled to more weeks of sickness benefits? Analysis Issue 1: Is the Claimant entitled to more weeks of sickness benefits? [ 8 ] A claimant isn’t entitled to be paid benefits for a working day in a benefit period for which the claimant fails to prove that on that day the claimant was unable to work because of a prescribed illness, injury or quarantine, and that the claimant would otherwise be available for work. Footnote 4 [ 9 ] The information and evidence to be provided to the Commission by a claimant in order to prove inability to work because of illness, injury or quarantine is a medical certificate completed by a medical doctor or other medical professional attesting to the claimant’s inability to work and stating the probable duration of the illness, injury or quarantine. Footnote 5 [ 10 ] The Claimant provided evidence that he was unable to work because of illness. In fact, he was paid 26 weeks of sickness benefits. Footnote 6 [ 11 ] The Commission says that the Claimant stated that he was unable to go back to work and wants to be paid more sickness benefits. [ 12 ] Based on his medical certificate dated March 1, 2025, the Claimant isn’t fit for work and there is no expectation that he will be able to go back to work anytime soon. Footnote 7 The medical certificate dated March 25, 2025, said that he will be off work for at least 12 months. Footnote 8 [ 13 ] The Act says that the maximum number of weeks during a benefit period when benefits can be paid is 26 weeks in the case of illness, injury or quarantine. Footnote 9 [ 14 ] I understand the Claimant’s difficult situation because he has been off work for a long time because of illness. But my role is to apply the Act, and I can’t change it just to please the Claimant who feels wronged. The Act sets out a maximum number of weeks a claimant can be paid under [NAME]  sickness benefits. I don’t have the authority to change that number. [ 15 ] The Claimant was paid the maximum number of weeks of sickness benefits that he is entitled to. He was paid 26 weeks of [NAME]  sickness benefits. That is the maximum number of weeks of sickness benefits under the Act. Footnote 10 Conclusion [ 16 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 17 ] The Claimant was paid the maximum number of weeks of sickness benefits that he is entitled to. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 12(3)(c) of the Employment Insurance Act (Act). I note that the Commission didn’t cite the correct reference to the Act in its arguments because it referred to a maximum of 15 weeks. See GD4-4. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See the Claimant’s reasons for challenging the Commission’s reconsideration decision at GD2-4. Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 See the Tribunal’s letter dated December 29, 2025, at GD1-1. Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 See section 18(1)(b) of the Act. Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 See section 40(1) of the Employment Insurance Regulations. Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 See the certificate attesting to the payment of Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) benefits. Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 See the request for leave because of health reasons at GD2-12. Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 See the medical certificate at GD12-10. Return to footnote 8 Footnote 9 See section 12(3)(c) of the Act . I note that the Commission didn’t cite the correct reference to the Act in its arguments because it referred to a maximum of 15 weeks. See GD4-4. Return to footnote 9 Footnote 10 See section 12(3)(c) of the Act. I note that the Commission didn’t cite the correct reference to the Act in its arguments because it referred to a maximum of 15 weeks. See GD4-4. Return to footnote 10