Appeal for Family Caregiver Benefits Dismissed Due to Insufficient Evidence

Citation: WH  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  369 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated March 3, 2026 (GE-26-495) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference/Teleconference Hearing date: June 26, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: June 29, 2026 File number: AD-26-290 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matter Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] W. H.’s appeal is dismissed. The General Division didn’t make any legal errors or important factual errors, and it followed a fair process. Overview [ 2 ] W. H. is the Claimant. He applied for Family Caregiver Benefits and wants to claim two weeks of benefits while he was caring for his father. [ 3 ] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission decided that he hadn’t met the conditions set out in law to get Family Caregiver Benefits. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] The General Division concluded the same and dismissed his appeal. It explained that the medical certificate he submitted doesn’t say that his father’s life was at risk, so he can’t get benefits. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The Claimant appealed to the Appeal Division arguing that the General Division made several errors. Footnote 3 Preliminary matter [ 6 ] The Claimant asked the Tribunal to schedule a videoconference hearing. Footnote 4 But at the start of the hearing, he ran into computer issues so he couldn’t turn on his video camera. I offered him an opportunity to reschedule the hearing, or to convert it to a teleconference instead. The Claimant decided to proceed with the hearing as a teleconference, so it went ahead as scheduled. Issues [ 7 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Did the General Division make any legal errors or important factual errors when it decided the Claimant couldn’t get Family Caregiver benefits? b) Did the General Division fail to follow a fair process in some way? c) If so, how should the error or errors be fixed? Analysis [ 8 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division made several errors, including legal, important factual errors and says it didn’t follow a fair process. His arguments are set out at pages AD1-8 to AD1-9. I’ve reviewed his arguments and carefully considered them in making my decision. [ 9 ] The law sets out the types of errors that the Appeal Division can consider. Footnote 5 If the Claimant establishes that the General Division made a reviewable error, then I can intervene. Footnote 6 [ 10 ] The General Division makes a legal error when it ignores an argument it has to consider, doesn’t give adequate reasons for its decision, misinterprets the law, uses an incorrect legal test, or doesn’t follow a court decision it has to follow. [ 11 ] The General Division makes an important factual error when it reaches its decision by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. Footnote 7 [ 12 ] And the right to a fair hearing before the Tribunal includes certain procedural protections. For example, the right to an impartial and unbiased decision maker, the right of a party to know the case against them and to be given an opportunity to respond to the case. [ 13 ] If the Claimant establishes that any of the above errors were made, then I can intervene. Footnote 8 The General Division decided that the medical certificate didn’t meet the criteria set out in the law, so he couldn’t get Family Caregiver Benefits [ 14 ] The General Division had to decide whether the Claimant met the requirements set out in law to get Family Caregiver Benefits. [ 15 ] The law says that Family Caregiver Benefits are paid to a major attachment claimant to care for a “critically ill adult” if a medical doctor or nurse practitioner has issued a certificate that states that the adult is a “critically ill adult” and requires the care or support of one or more of their family members. Footnote 9 [ 16 ] The law defines that a “critically ill adult” as a person who is 18 years of age or older on the day on which the period referred to in s. 23.3(3) or s.152.062(3) of the Act begins, whose baseline state of health has significantly changed and whose life is at risk as a result of an illness or injury. Footnote 10 [ 17 ] To get Family Caregiver Benefits a person must establish that they are caring for a “critically ill adult” by submitting a Medical Certificate which confirms three specific things: the patient’s life is at risk as a result of their illness or injury; they have experienced a significant change in their baseline state of health; and; they require care or support from one or more of their family members. [ 18 ] The Claimant submitted a medical certificate, and it’s set out at page GD3-28. [ 19 ] The General Division made the following key findings: Footnote 11 a) The Claimant submitted a medical certificate, but it doesn’t satisfy the criteria set out in s. 23.3 of the Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act) because it doesn’t establish that his father was “critically ill” as defined by the law. Footnote 12 b) The definition of a “critically ill adult” set out in s.1(7) of the Employment Insurance Regulations ( EI Regulations) is detailed and isn’t satisfied simply because a person is dealing with “acute issues” or because they’ve been admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at a hospital. Footnote 13 c) As the medical certificate fails to confirm that his father’s life was at risk, he can’t get Family Caregiver Benefits. Footnote 14 d) The Appeal Division has previously decided that in G.L.  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2019  SST  209 that the term “critically ill adult” must be interpreted based on the definition in the Act and Regulations, not based on a person’s understanding of the wording. Footnote 15 The General Division didn’t make any legal errors or any important factual errors [ 20 ] I find that the General Division didn’t make any legal errors or any important factual errors when it concluded the Claimant didn’t meet the criteria to get Family Caregiver Benefits. Footnote 16 I will explain. [ 21 ] The General Division correctly stated the relevant provisions and applied the law in its decision. Footnote 17 It was also free to rely on another Appeal Division decision that it found persuasive (see above in para.19(d)). Footnote 18 [ 22 ] I wasn’t persuaded by the Claimant’s arguments for a few reasons. [ 23 ] The Claimant points out that the purpose of Family Caregiver Benefits is to support individuals caring for critically ill family members. But in order to get those benefits, a person has to be critically ill as defined by the law. There is no discretion when it involves a requirement of the law. Footnote 19 [ 24 ] The definition of a critical illness says that a person’s life has to be at risk. It’s not the General Division’s role to infer that his father’s life was at risk because of his age, ICU admission and acute issues, but rather it’s the medical certificate by a medical doctor or nurse practitioner that has to say that. This is a statutory requirement to get this particular benefit. [ 25 ] The General Division considered the medical certificate he submitted, but the Claimant couldn’t point him to any place where it explicitly said his father’s life was at risk. Footnote 20 [ 26 ] The General Division acknowledged the context and challenges the Claimant faced when trying to get hospital officials abroad to complete the Commission’s medical certificate (their form is marked as “INS 5242B”). Footnote 21 Importantly, it didn’t make a negative inference for not completing the Commission’s form but instead it considered the medical certificate that he submitted. Put simply, it didn’t matter that his medical certificate was obtained from a hospital abroad because the issue here was that the medical certificate didn’t contain all of the information it needed to. [ 27 ] The General Division’s key findings on this issue are consistent with the evidence. It didn’t ignore or overlook any relevant evidence when it concluded that the medical certificate didn’t meet the requirements to get Family Caregiver Benefits. [ 28 ] The General Division has to follow the law and that’s exactly what it did. The Claimant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the law itself and that isn’t a reviewable error. Also, I can’t reweigh the evidence in order to reach a different or more favourable outcome for the Claimant. The General Division also followed a fair process [ 29 ] I find that the General Division followed a fair process. Footnote 22 The Claimant hasn’t raised anything that shows the General Division didn’t follow a fair process in some way. The Claimant understood the case before him and got an opportunity to present his case. Conclusion [ 30 ] The appeal is dismissed. The General Division did not make any reviewable errors in this case, so I can’t intervene. Footnotes Footnote 1 See Commission’s decision at GD3-36 to GD3-39. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See General Division decision at pages AD1-23 to AD1-28. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See Application to the Appeal Division at pages AD1-1 to AD1-28. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See page AD1-11. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 59(1) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 This is a plain language wording of section 58(1)(c) of the  DESD  Act, which says this happens when the General Division has “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 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 59(1) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 23.3(1) of the Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act). Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See section 1(7) of the Employment Insurance Regulations ( EI Regulations). Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See pages AD1-23 to AD1-28. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See medical certificate at page GD3-28. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See paragraphs 15-16 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See paragraphs 13 and 20 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See G.L.  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2019  SST  209, paragraphs 12 and 13. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See section 58(1)(b) and 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See paragraphs 13-17 and 19 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See paragraphs 12-13 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See Canada ([NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2001  FCA  304 at paragraph 2 and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2004  FCA  90 at paragraph 3. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See paragraph 9-10 and 18 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See Medical Certificate for Employment Insurance Family Caregiver Benefits - INS5242B - Canada.ca (https://catalogue.servicecanada.gc.ca/content/EForms/en/Detail.html?Form=INS5242B) Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See section 58(1)(a) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 22 referrer