Claimant Denied EI Benefits While Outside Canada
📌 In brief
The Social Security Tribunal of Canada denied a claimant's request for Employment Insurance benefits because the claimant was outside Canada. The exception for a 7-day visit to attend to a seriously ill family member did not apply to the entire period the claimant was abroad.
⚖️ Legal holding
A claimant is not entitled to Employment Insurance benefits while outside Canada unless an exception applies.
📖 What the law says
This section states that a person cannot receive Employment Insurance benefits if they are outside of Canada, with some exceptions.
This regulation allows a person to still receive Employment Insurance benefits even when they are outside Canada for up to seven consecutive days if the purpose is to attend the funeral of a close family member or to visit a seriously ill family member.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's appeal for Employment Insurance benefits was denied due to being outside Canada.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Social Security Tribunal of Canada denied a claimant's request for Employment Insurance benefits, ruling that the claimant was ineligible while outside Canada, except for a 7-day visit exception to attend to a seriously ill family member.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Citation: SA v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026 SST 209 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated March 9, 2026 (GE-26-508) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: March 18, 2026 File number: AD-26-178 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. The appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] The Respondent (Commission) decided that the Applicant (Claimant) was disentitled from receiving Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) benefits from December 27, 2021, until November 6, 2022. [ 3 ] Upon reconsideration, the Commission changed its initial decision and disentitled the Claimant from January 4, 2022, until November 6, 2022. It allowed seven (7) days to visit a close family member who is seriously ill or injured. The Claimant appealed the reconsideration decision to the General Division. [ 4 ] The General Division found that the Commission had 72 months to review the claim. It found that the Claimant was outside Canada from December 27, 2021, until November 6, 2022. The General Division concluded that the Claimant met the exception that allows for an absence from Canada of up to seven days to visit a close family member who is seriously ill or injured. The exemption applied from December 27, 2021, to January 2, 2022. It concluded that the Commission acted judicially when it decided to review the claim. [ 5 ] The Claimant now seeks leave to appeal of the General Division’s decision to the Appeal Division. She submits that she never received the questionnaire from the Commission. Had she received it, she would have answered right away. The Claimant submits that there is no evidence that she knowingly authorized or supervised the submission of the [NAME] reports. The Claimant submits that the General Division made an error by allowing the Commission 72 months to review her claim. [ 6 ] I must decide whether there is some reviewable error of the General Division upon which the appeal might succeed. [ 7 ] I am refusing leave to appeal because the Claimant’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success. Issue [ 8 ] Does the Claimant raise some reviewable error of the General Division upon which the appeal might succeed? Analysis [ 9 ] The law specifies the only grounds of appeal of a General Division decision. Footnote 1 These reviewable errors are that: The General Division hearing process was not fair in some way. 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. The General Division based its decision on an important error of fact. The General Division made an error of law when making its decision. [ 10 ] An application for leave to appeal is a preliminary step to a hearing on the merits. It is an initial hurdle for the Claimant to meet, but it is lower than the one that must be met on the hearing of the appeal on the merits. At the leave to appeal stage, the Claimant does not have to prove her case but must establish that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success based on a reviewable error. In other words, that there is arguably some reviewable error upon which the appeal might succeed. [ 11 ] Therefore, before I can grant leave, I need to be satisfied that the reasons for appeal fall within any of the above-mentioned grounds of appeal and that at least one of the reasons has a reasonable chance of success. Does the Claimant raise some reviewable error of the General Division upon which the appeal might succeed? [ 12 ] The Claimant submits that she never received the questionnaire from the Commission. Had she received it, she would have answered right away. The Claimant submits that there is no evidence that she knowingly authorized or supervised the submission of the [NAME] reports. She submits that the General Division made an error by allowing the Commission 72 months to review her claim. Outside of Canada [ 13 ] There is no dispute that the Claimant was outside of Canada from December 26, 2021, until November 6, 2022. [ 14 ] When determining eligibility for [NAME] benefits while a claimant is outside Canada, the question of whether they knowingly made a false statement is not relevant. [ 15 ] The law stipulates without ambiguity that a claimant is not entitled to receive [NAME] benefits for any period during which the claimant is outside of Canada Footnote 2 , unless the claimant falls under one of the exceptions set out in in the regulations. Footnote 3 In other words, [NAME] has decided that if you are outside of Canada, you cannot receive [NAME] benefits unless you meet one of the exceptions. [ 16 ] The Claimant met the exception that allows for an absence from Canada of up to seven (7) days to visit a close family member who is seriously ill or injured. The exemption therefore applied from December 27, 2021, to January 2, 2022. [ 17 ] Therefore, I see no reviewable error made by the General Division when it concluded that the Claimant is not entitled to benefits for the remainder of the period during which she was not in Canada, from January 4, 2022, to November 6, 2022, as the evidence did not demonstrate that other exceptions applied. [ 18 ] I must reiterate that the Federal Court of Appeal has clearly established that any sum received to which a claimant is not entitled must be repaid. Footnote 4 Review of the claim [ 19 ] The Claimant submits that there is no evidence that she knowingly authorized or supervised the submission of the [NAME] reports. She submits that the General Division made an error by allowing the Commission 72 months to review her claim. [ 20 ] To benefit from the 72-month period to review a claim, the Commission does not have to establish that a claimant knowingly made false or misleading statements. Footnote 5 It only has to demonstrate that it could reasonably conclude that a false or misleading statement had been made in relation to the claim. Footnote 6 [ 21 ] In the Claimant’s reports, it was never reported by her friend that she was outside of Canada. The Commission later obtained information from the CBSA indicating that the Claimant had travelled outside of Canada from December 26, 2021, to November 6, 2022. [ 22 ] Given the contradictions between the claim reports and the CBSA information, the Commission could reasonably conclude that false or misleading statements were made in relation to the claim and thus benefit from 72 months to re-examine the claim for benefits. Conclusion [ 23 ] After reviewing the appeal docket and the General Division’s decision as well as considering the Claimant’s arguments in support of her request for leave to appeal, I have no choice but to find that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. [ 24 ] Leave to appeal is refused. This means the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 Section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 Section 37(b) of the Employment Insurance Act . Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 Section 55 of the Employment Insurance Regulations . Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2005 FCA 324. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 This must be established only when a penalty is imposed by the Commission. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 52(5) of the Employment Insurance Act , [NAME] (A-140-01), [NAME] (A-172-01), and [NAME] (A-646-02). Return to footnote 6 referrer
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant was denied Employment Insurance benefits for the period she was outside Canada.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was over whether the claimant was eligible for Employment Insurance benefits while outside Canada.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the claimant was not entitled to benefits while outside Canada, except for a 7-day visit exception.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 37(b) of the Employment Insurance Act and 55 of the Employment Insurance Regulations were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the claimant was outside Canada and did not meet the exception for a 7-day visit.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may not be eligible for Employment Insurance benefits while outside Canada unless they meet specific exceptions.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the claimant's travel dates and the CBSA information confirming the claimant's travel outside Canada.