
Benefits & Social Security judgments from Canadian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
The Social Security Tribunal ruled that vacation pay received after a layoff does not qualify for exemption under section 77.997 of the EI Regulations. The decision overturned a previous ruling by the General Division.
The Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal rescinded part of a lower court's decision regarding an Employment Insurance (EI) overpayment for earnings in April 6, 2025. The Claimant appealed against this decision and won on one aspect of their case.
A person appealed a decision about their a person retirement pension, claiming there was fraud in their contribution history. However, the tribunal found no proof of missing contributions and confirmed that the original calculation was accurate, dismissing the appeal.
The claimant requested an increase in her Canada Pension Plan retirement pension, claiming that $2500 was missing from her contributions. However, the appeal was dismissed because she did not provide enough evidence to prove her claims.
A worker challenged a decision by the Social Security Tribunal that their severance and vacation pay were considered 'earnings' under Employment Insurance. The tribunal denied permission to appeal, stating there was insufficient reason to believe the original decision was incorrect or unfair.
In this case, the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance (EI) benefits due to misconduct. The decision was based on the claimant's failure to follow safety protocols and their knowledge that such actions could lead to dismissal.
The claimant tried to get Employment Insurance (EI) benefits but was denied because she was outside Canada and didn't show she was available for work as required by EI law.
In this case, the Social Security Tribunal allowed the appeal because the lower court made an important mistake when deciding the case. The claimant explained she was very anxious and missed the deadline due to a postal strike. As a result, the tribunal gave her more time to file her notice of appeal.
A person seeking to challenge a decision about a person benefits had their time to file an appeal extended because they provided a good reason for being late. However, the tribunal decided not to allow the appeal to proceed as there was no strong evidence of a mistake in the original decision.
A person seeking a person (EI) benefits must have a certain number of insurable hours worked within a specific period. In this case, the claimant did not meet the required hours and was denied EI benefits by both the General Division and Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal.