Claimant Denied Leave to Appeal EI Benefits Decision

Citation: AG  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  49 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-25-3306) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 22, 2026 File number: AD-26-24 On this page Decision Overview Issues I am not giving the Applicant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. The appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] A. G. is the Applicant. She applied for Employment Insurance ( EI ) benefits on April 22, 2025. Unfortunately, she didn’t attempt to file any claimant reports until August 21, 2025. [ 3 ] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) refused to pay the Applicant benefits from April 21, 2025, to May 30, 2025, because the Applicant didn’t complete reports within the allowed time. The Commission refused to antedate (backdate) the reports. [ 4 ] The Applicant asked the Commission to reconsider but it didn’t change its position. The Applicant then applied to the Social Security Tribunal General Division. The General Division agreed with the Commission. [ 5 ] The Applicant has asked for permission to appeal the General Division’s decision. I am denying the Applicant’s request for permission to appeal because there is no reasonable chance of success. Issues [ 6 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Is there an arguable case the General Division didn’t provide the Applicant with a fair process? b) Is there an arguable case the General Division made any other reviewable error? I am not giving the Applicant permission to appeal [ 7 ] An appeal can only go ahead if the Appeal Division gives an applicant permission to appeal. Footnote 1 I have to be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 2 There has to be an arguable ground upon which the appeal might succeed. Footnote 3 [ 8 ] There are only certain grounds of appeal that the Appeal Division can consider. Footnote 4 Briefly, the Applicant has to show the General Division did one of the following: It acted unfairly in some way. It decided an issue it shouldn’t have, or didn’t decide an issue it should have. This is also called an error of jurisdiction. It made an error of law. It based its decision on an important error of fact. [ 9 ] So, for the Applicant’s appeal to go ahead, I have to find there is a reasonable chance of success on any of those grounds. The Applicant says there is a natural justice error because the General Division’s decision isn’t fair. [ 10 ] Because the Applicant is self-represented, I reviewed the file, listened to the hearing recording, and looked at the decision the Applicant is appealing. Footnote 5 There is no arguable case the General Division didn’t provide a fair process [ 11 ] A fair process is called natural justice. It ensures parties have a chance to present their case. Natural justice also means parties must know the case they need to meet. They must have a chance to respond. An impartial decision-maker must decide the case. Footnote 6 [ 12 ] The issue before the General Division was whether the Applicant’s reports could be antedated. The Applicant hasn’t suggested that she didn’t have an opportunity to present her case. There is no suggestion from the hearing recording that the Applicant didn’t have a full opportunity to present her case. The General Division reflected what it understood the facts were. It also asked the Applicant more than once if she had anything else to add. Footnote 7 [ 13 ] The Applicant says she’s appealing because she thinks the decision is unfair. Footnote 8 But the Applicant received a fair process. Not liking a decision is different from showing an arguable case that there is an error. There is no arguable case the General Division made a natural justice error. There is no arguable case the General Division made a reviewable error [ 14 ] The General Division explained the legal test it had to apply. Footnote 9 It also asked the Applicant for her comments on that test. Footnote 10 It said the Applicant had to show she took reasonably prompt steps to understand her entitlement to her benefits and obligations under the law. If there were exceptional circumstances that explain why the Applicant didn’t do so, those also have to be considered. [ 15 ] The General Division applied the law to the facts of the case. Footnote 11 It considered the Applicant’s position and weighed the evidence. I don’t have the authority to step in on questions about how the law was applied to the facts of a case. Those questions involve both fact and law, and the Appeal Division doesn’t have the power to deal with them. [ 16 ] An error of jurisdiction means that the General Division didn’t decide an issue it had to decide or decided an issue it didn’t have the authority to decide. In this case, the General Division made the decisions it had to make. It didn’t make any decisions that were outside its authority. [ 17 ] An error of fact happens when the General Division makes its decision based on an erroneous (wrong) finding of fact that was “made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it”. Footnote 12 This means the General Division had to ignore, misunderstand or overlook the evidence in some way. [ 18 ] The General Division considered the same facts the Applicant is now repeating. Footnote 13 She isn’t raising anything new from what she argued to the Commission or the General Division. Footnote 14 The Applicant hasn’t shown how there was an error with what the General Division decided. Rather, she disagrees with the outcome. It isn’t the role of the Appeal Division to reweigh the evidence that was before the General Division. [ 19 ] The General Division applied the correct legal test. It made the decisions it had to decide. There is no arguable case the General Division made an important error of fact. This means there is no arguable case the General Division made a reviewable error that would allow the Appeal Division to step in. Conclusion [ 20 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 56(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 58(2) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2024  FC  928 at paragraph 13; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2018  FC  498; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2016  FC  115 at paragraph 12; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2017  FC  259 at paragraph 16. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. The grounds listed are also known as errors. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 The Federal Court has said I must do this in decisions like [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  874 and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See Canadian Pacific Railway Company  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  69; and Kuk  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FCA  74 at paragraph 10. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 For example, listen to the General Division hearing recording at 00:42:05; 00:52:45; 01:04:51; and 01:12:25. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See AD1-3 the Applicant’s Application to the Appeal Division. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 Listen to the General Division hearing recording at 00:09:32. See the General Division decision at paragraphs 9 to 14. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 Listen to the General Division hearing recording at 01:05:51. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 21 to 29. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See, for example, the General Division decision at paragraphs 7, 18, 19, and 26 to 28. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See AD1-3 of the Application to the Appeal Division. These arguments are the same she put forward to the General Division in GD2-6. See also GD3-20 and GD3-22 to GD3-26 where she argued the same thing to the Commission. Return to footnote 14 referrer