Appeal for Employment Insurance Benefits Denied - Social Security Tribunal Decision

Citation: AZ  v  [NAME] Commission , 2026  [NAME]  136 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 18, 2025 (GE-25-3201) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: February 25, 2026 File number: AD-26-65 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis The test for getting permission to appeal I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] A. Z.’s appeal will not proceed. Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. Overview [ 2 ] A. Z. is the Claimant. She applied for Employment Insurance benefits on May 23, 2025. She asked the [NAME] Commission (Commission) to antedate her application to an earlier date. Footnote 1 [ 3 ] The Commission decided that the Claimant didn’t have enough hours of insurable employment to get benefits so a benefit period couldn’t be established. It also decided that her application couldn’t be antedated to the earlier date because she didn’t have good cause during the period of delay. Footnote 2 [ 4 ] The General Division decided that the Claimant didn’t have good cause throughout the entire period of delay, so her application couldn’t be antedated to the earlier date. Footnote 3 [ 5 ] The Claimant is now asking for permission to appeal and argues that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process. Footnote 4 [ 6 ] I am denying permission to appeal because the Claimant’s arguments don’t show that she has an arguable case upon which the appeal might succeed. So, I can’t give her permission to appeal. Footnote 5 Issues [ 7 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Was the Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division late? b) Is there an arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process? Analysis The application to the Appeal Division was not late [ 8 ] The deadline to file an application to the Appeal Division is 30 days after the day on which the General Division decision was communicated in writing. Footnote 6 [ 9 ] The Tribunal can give an extension of time to file an appeal. Footnote 7 When deciding whether to grant or refuse an extension of time, the Tribunal has to consider whether there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. Footnote 8 [ 10 ] The General Division issued its decision on December 18, 2025. The Tribunal received the Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division on January 30, 2026. Footnote 9 [ 11 ] I wrote to the Claimant because it looked like her application to the Appeal Division might have been more than 30 days late. I asked her when she received the General Division decision. Footnote 10 [ 12 ] The Claimant disputes that her application was late. She wrote back indicating that she got the decision by mail on December 30, 2025. She then tried emailing her application on January 29, 2026, but the email address she used didn’t exist. So, she called the Tribunal, and they emailed her the required paperwork. She completed and submitted it to the Tribunal on January 30, 2026. Footnote 11 [ 13 ] I find that the Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division was filed on time. It was communicated to her in writing on December 30, 2025. Counting from the following day, the 30-day deadline to file her application was January 30, 2026. The Tribunal received her application on January 30, 2026, so it was filed on time. The test for getting permission to appeal [ 14 ] The law says that I can consider four types of errors, and they include, a failure to follow a fair process, jurisdictional, legal, and important factual errors. Footnote 12 [ 15 ] I can only give the Claimant permission to appeal if there’s an “arguable case” that the General Division made a reviewable error that gives her appeal a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 13 [ 16 ] The Claimant set out her reasons for appealing and I have considered them. Footnote 14 I’ve also reviewed the General Division’s decision, the file documents and listened to the audio recording before making my decision. I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal The Claimant’s arguments to the Appeal Division [ 17 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process, and that the decision is wrong and unfair. She says that her reasons for the delay should not impact whether she deserves to get benefits. She also says that she worked hard and paid EI deductions, which is supposed to protect her in the event of job loss. Footnote 15 How to get your application for benefits antedated to an earlier date [ 18 ] The Claimant has to prove two things to get her application for benefits antedated. Footnote 16 She has to prove she had good cause for the entire period of delay. And she also has to prove that she qualified for benefits on the earlier date. [ 19 ] [ADDRESS] says that barring exceptional circumstances, claimants are expected to take reasonably prompt steps to understand their obligations under the  Employment Insurance Act  ( EI  Act). Footnote 17 [ 20 ] To establish good cause, the Court also says that claimants must be able to show that they did what a reasonable person in their situation would have done to satisfy themselves of their rights and obligations under the  EI  Act. Footnote 18 [ 21 ] [ADDRESS] has already decided that trying to find a job or living off savings doesn’t amount to good cause. Footnote 19 The General Division decided that the Claimant didn’t have good cause to antedate her application for benefits [ 22 ] The General Division found that the delay period ran from January 31, 2024 to May 23, 2025. Footnote 20 It considered the reasons she provided for submitting her application late. Footnote 21 [ 23 ] It found the Claimant had exceptional circumstances, but for only part of the delay. It accepted the Claimant was sick, had surgery and was recovering from surgery so she couldn’t take reasonably prompt steps for the period from January 31, 2024, to June 1, 2024. Footnote 22 [ 24 ] The General Division concluded that she hadn’t proven she had good cause for the delay in applying for benefits throughout the entire period of the delay, so her application couldn’t be antedated to the earlier date. It explained that she hadn’t acted as a reasonably and prudent person would have done in the circumstances to find out about her rights and obligations. Instead, she prioritized other things instead such as finding a job, and other personal matters. Footnote 23 [ 25 ] Finally, the General Division found that the other legal issue related to hours and establishing a benefit period wasn’t under appeal, but only the antedate issue was. Footnote 24 There is no arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process [ 26 ] Procedural fairness is about the fairness of the process. The Claimant has a right to be heard and to know the case against her. She also has a right to be given an opportunity to respond and have her case considered fully and fairly by an impartial decision-maker. [ 27 ] The Claimant hasn’t pointed out how the General Division didn’t follow a fair process, except to say that the decision was wrong and unfair. A disagreement with the General Division’s decision isn’t an error that I can consider. Footnote 25 And I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal based on fairness in general. [ 28 ] The Appeal Division’s mandate is limited, so it isn’t an opportunity for a “redo.” Footnote 26 I also can’t conduct a new assessment or reweigh the evidence in order to come to a different conclusion. Footnote 27 [ 29 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process. I listened to the audio recording. The hearing was held in-person, the Claimant got an opportunity to testify and present her case. [ 30 ] The General Division is the trier of fact and considered her reasons for applying late. It was free to conclude, based on the evidence before it, that she didn’t have good cause for the entire period of delay. [ 31 ] There are no other reasons for giving the Claimant permission to appeal. The General Division didn’t ignore or misunderstand any relevant evidence. Footnote 28 It also correctly referred to and applied the law in its decision. Footnote 29 Conclusion [ 32 ] The application to the Appeal Division wasn’t late. Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See pages GD3-27 to GD3-28. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See Commission’s initial and reconsideration decision at pages GD3-23 to GD3-24, GD3-30 and GD3-33. Also see Commission’s arguments at page GD4-2. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See General Division decision at pages AD1A-1 to AD1A-7. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See Application to the Appeal Division at pages AD1-1 to AD1-6. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 57(1)(a) of the  DESD  Act. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 27(1) of the  Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure  ( [NAME]). Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 27(2) of the  [NAME] to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 19(2) of the  [NAME]. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See Tribunal letter dated February 4, 2026. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See page AD1B-1. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See section 58(1) of the  DESD  Act. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 [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 13 referrer Footnote 14 See page AD1-3. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See page AD1-3. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See section 10(4) of the  Employment Insurance Act  ( EI  Act). Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See  Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2010  FCA  336 at paragraph 11. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See  Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2011  FCA  266 at paragraph 4. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2011  FCA  116 at paragraphs 7-8, and [NAME]  v  [NAME] Commission , 2012  FCA  120. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See paragraph 16 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See paragraph 20 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See paragraph 24 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See paragraphs 2, 23 and 26 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See paragraphs 7-11 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  21 at paragraph 7. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2015  FC  1300 at paragraphs 20 and 33. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  220 at paragraph 11. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 The Federal Court has suggested such a review in decisions like  [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2016  FC  874 and  [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General),  2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See paragraphs 13-18 and 21 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 29 referrer