
Benefits & Social Security judgments from Canadian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
The Federal Court rejected a challenge to the Canada Revenue Agency's decision to deny eligibility for various COVID benefits. The court determined that the process was fair and the decision was reasonable because the claimant did not provide enough documentation to prove eligibility.
The Federal Court ruled that a decision by the a person denying a claimant's eligibility for a person was unreasonable because it lacked clear reasoning and justification. This means the case will be reviewed again with a different officer.
The Federal Court upheld a decision made by the Canada Revenue Agency (a person), which determined an individual was not eligible for CERB benefits because they did not meet the required income threshold. The court found that the a person’s decision was both reasonable and procedurally fair, dismissing the claimant's application.
A person appealing for a a person disability pension must prove they had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2012. In this case, the claimant's appeal was dismissed because there wasn't enough evidence to show she met this requirement before that date.
The Federal Court dismissed a challenge brought by an individual against decisions made by the Canada Revenue Agency (a person) regarding eligibility for CRB and CERB benefits. The court ruled that the applicant did not provide enough proof of income from dividends, which is necessary to qualify for these benefits.
A person challenged a decision by the Canada Revenue Agency (a person) to deny their eligibility for several COVID-related benefit programs. After reviewing the case, the Federal Court ruled in favour of the a person, stating that the process was fair and the decision reasonable based on the available information.
In a recent Employment Insurance case, the Appeal Division found that the Social Security Tribunal made a mistake by not considering previous rulings from the Federal Court. The Appeal Division ruled that the original decision should be reconsidered in light of these higher court rulings.
The claimant, who suffers from anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder, applied for a CPP Disability Pension but was denied because she did not follow medical advice and did not provide sufficient proof of her disability.
A person seeking a a person (a person) disability pension due to mental health conditions must provide strong evidence that their condition is both severe and likely to be long-lasting without recovery. In this case, the Social Security Tribunal of Canada dismissed the claimant's appeal because they did not follow medical advice.
In this Employment Insurance case, the Appeal Division ruled in favour of the Commission, overturning the previous decision because it did not consider relevant legal precedents set by higher courts. This means that any income received during the period must now be included as earnings and affect the claimant's benefits.
In this case, an employee appealed a decision denying their Employment Insurance (a person) benefits due to alleged misconduct. The Appeal Division found that the General Division made errors in its assessment and allowed the appeal. It ruled that clear notice from the employer regarding return-to-work obligations is necessary for misconduct to be established.
The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review of the Canada Revenue Agency's refusal to conduct a second review of a person's eligibility for CERB and CRB benefits. The court ruled that the refusal was reasonable and procedurally fair.
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review application brought by an individual challenging the Canada Revenue Agency's refusal to conduct a second review of their eligibility for CERB and CRB benefits. The court found that a person’s decision was reasonable as it adhered to statutory deadlines and procedural requirements.
The Social Security Tribunal of Canada overturned the Commission's decision to reconsider claimants' Employment Insurance benefits due to an error in processing their claims. The Tribunal found that the Commission failed to use its discretion judicially when it decided to reconsider the claims.