Claimant Denied EI Benefits for Being Outside Canada and Making False Statements

Citation: SA v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  [NAME]  4 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-25-3217) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 5, 2026 File number: AD-25-812 On this page Decision Overview Issue I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am refusing leave (permission) to appeal. The appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] [NAME]. is the Applicant. I will call her the Claimant because this application is about her claim for Employment Insurance ( EI ) benefits. The Respondent is the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, which I will call the Commission. [ 3 ] The Claimant was receiving EI benefits when she left Canada to visit her sick mother. She declared that she was in Canada and available for work during her absence. [ 4 ] The Commission discovered that the Claimant had been outside Canada and informed her that she was not entitled to the benefits she received during her absence, so she would have to pay them back. It also found that the Claimant was unavailable for work during the same period. The Commission gave the Claimant a warning for having made false statements about her status, because it determined that she had made those statements knowingly [ 5 ] The Commission changed its decision after the Claimant asked it to reconsider. It accepted that the Claimant was available for work despite her absence from Canada and that she should not be disentitled to benefits for the entire period of her absence. It allowed that she was entitled to seven days of benefits because she had been visiting a seriously ill family member. The Commission did not change its decision about the warning it gave her for knowingly making false statements. [ 6 ] The Claimant appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal, but the General Division dismissed her appeal. She is now asking the Appeal Division for permission to appeal. [ 7 ] I am refusing permission to appeal. The Claimant has not made out an arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact. Issue [ 8 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error of fact by failing to consider the Claimant’s personal circumstances such as her financial hardship, emotional difficulties, psychological condition, or her remorse? I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal [ 9 ] For the Claimant’s application for leave to appeal to succeed, her reasons for appealing would have to fit within the “grounds of appeal.” The grounds of appeal identify the kinds of errors that I can consider. [ 10 ] I may consider only the following errors: a) The General Division hearing process was not fair in some way. b) The General Division did not decide an issue that it should have decided. Or, it decided something it did not have the power to decide (error of jurisdiction). c) The General Division based its decision on an important error of fact. d) The General Division made an error of law when making its decision. Footnote 1 [ 11 ] To grant this application for leave and permit the appeal process to move forward, I must find that there is a reasonable chance of success on one or more grounds of appeal. Other court decisions have equated a reasonable chance of success to an “arguable case.” Footnote 2 Important error of fact [ 12 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division ignored or failed to understand some of her personal circumstances. [ 13 ] However, I cannot accept that the General Division made an “important error of fact” unless the General Division based its decision on a finding that ignored or misunderstood relevant evidence. Footnote 3 [ 14 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division ignored or misunderstood relevant evidence. The Claimant’s circumstances may be sympathetic, but the General Division must apply the law to the facts as it finds them. [ 15 ] In the Claimant’s appeal, she has conceded the key facts that support the findings on which the General Division based its decision. She acknowledged that she had been outside of Canada, that she visited her seriously ill mother while away, and that she knowingly made false statements. Outside Canada [ 16 ] According to the Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act), Claimants who are outside of Canada are disentitled to benefits, subject to a few limited exceptions set out in the Employment Insurance Regulations (Regulations). Footnote 4 Since the Commission accepted that the Claimant was available for work, and that she had been absent from Canada to visit a seriously ill close relative, it was authorized by the Regulations to pay her up to seven days of benefits. Footnote 5 She was not entitled to any other benefits while outside Canada. [ 17 ] In other words, the personal circumstances identified by the Claimant in her argument could not have changed the decision on her disentitlement while outside of Canada. The General Division did not base its decision on any finding that might have been different if it had considered the personal circumstances described by the Claimant. Penalty for false statement [ 18 ] Where a Claimant is found to have made a false statement, the Commission may impose a penalty. Footnote 6 In this case, the Commission could not impose a monetary penalty because it was out of time. More than 36 months had lapsed since the false statement. However, it was still within the 72-month period in which it could issue a warning. Footnote 7 The General Division considered that the Commission acted properly (or judicially) when it decided to impose a warning. Footnote 8 [ 19 ] It is clear that the General Division was aware of the Claimant’s financial struggles, and of the difficult circumstances of her travel. Footnote 9 However, the General Division did not refer to the Claimant’s personal circumstances as it reviewed whether the Commission had made its decision on the warning in a judicial manner. It merely said that the Commission considered all the relevant factors and did not consider irrelevant factors. [ 20 ] In this case, the Claimant’s statements about her financial hardship, or her other personal circumstances, were not so important to the decision that the General Division should have referred to them in its analysis. the General Division is generally presumed to have considered all the evidence. It does not need to refer to each and every piece of evidence. Footnote 10 [ 21 ] The Claimant’s personal circumstances might have been important to the General Division if the Commission had imposed monetary penalties and if - at the same time - the record suggested that the Commission had not considered those circumstances. However, the Commission did not impose a monetary penalty. It imposed a warning only. And it appears that the Commission was mindful of the Claimant’s personal circumstances. It stated that it considered her circumstances were so mitigating that any monetary penalty would be punitive. Footnote 11 [ 22 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact by failing to refer to the Claimant’s financial hardship or any of her other personal circumstances. Conclusion [ 23 ] I am refusing permission to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 This is a plain-language version of the grounds of appeal. The full text is in section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESDA ). Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v [NAME] , 2007 FCA  41; and [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2017 FC  259. Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESDA . Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 See section 37(b) of the EI Act, and . Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 See section 55(1)(d) of the EI Regulations. Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 See section 38 of the EI Act. Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 See section 41.1(2) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 Acting “judicially” means not acting in bad faith, with an improper purpose or in a discriminatory manner, considering the relevant factors, and not considering factors that are irrelevant. Return to footnote 8 Footnote 9 See paras 24 and 25 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 9 Footnote 10 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General), 2012  FCA  82. Return to footnote 10 Footnote 11 See GD3-47. Return to footnote 11