Claimant Denied Leave to Appeal Employment Insurance Benefits

Citation: RN  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  98 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 29, 2025 (GE-25-3370) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: February 12, 2026 File number: AD-26-6 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matters Issue 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 ] [NAME]. is the Applicant. He applied for Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) regular benefits on October 1, 2025, because his employer had a shortage of work. [ 3 ] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) said a benefit period couldn’t be established because the Applicant didn’t have enough hours in his qualifying period. The Applicant asked the Commission to reconsider but it didn’t change its position. [ 4 ] The Applicant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal) General Division. The General Division agreed with the Commission. [ 5 ] The Applicant has asked for permission to appeal to the Appeal Division. I am denying the Applicant’s request for permission to appeal because there is no reasonable chance of success. Preliminary matters The Applicant didn’t explain an error the General Division made [ 6 ] I asked the Applicant to send in information about why he was appealing the General Division decision. The Applicant checked off that the General Division didn’t follow procedural fairness but didn’t give any explanation about his reason for appealing. [ 7 ] On January 8, 2026, I wrote the Applicant and explained, “Leave to appeal can only be granted if you raise an arguable case about how the General Division made an error. This means that you need to explain HOW the General Division made an error.” Footnote 1 The Applicant didn’t send in additional information as of the date of issuance of this decision. Issue [ 8 ] Is there an arguable case the General Division didn’t follow procedural fairness? I am not giving the Applicant permission to appeal [ 9 ] An appeal can only go ahead if the Appeal Division gives an applicant permission to appeal. Footnote 2 I have to be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 3 There has to be an arguable ground upon which the appeal might succeed. Footnote 4 [ 10 ] There are only certain grounds of appeal that the Appeal Division can consider. Footnote 5 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. [ 11 ] 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. There is no arguable case the General Division didn’t follow procedural fairness [ 12 ] A fair process is also called natural justice. These principles include making sure parties have a fair opportunity to present their case and have it decided by an impartial decision-maker. I can only look at an error that the General Division did, or didn’t do. [ 13 ] The Applicant says if he applied for regular [NAME] benefits in 2023 he would have been eligible. He says he didn’t know he wouldn’t still be eligible in 2025. This is the same argument the Applicant made to the Commission and the General Division. Footnote 6 [ 14 ] The General Division explained that the Applicant did qualify for [NAME] benefits in 2023. Footnote 7 He established a claim for [NAME] sickness benefits in October 2023. So, the hours the Applicant had worked up until that point were used to establish that October 2023 claim. You can’t use hours twice. [ 15 ] As the General Division explained, the Applicant only worked 40 hours from October 2023 to October 2025. Footnote 8 Unfortunately, 40 hours isn’t enough to qualify for a new claim for [NAME] benefits. Footnote 9 There is nothing in the [NAME] Act that allows for eligibility requirements to be waived because of someone’s personal situation. [ 16 ] The Applicant didn’t explain how the General Division’s process was unfair. There is nothing in the record that suggests the Applicant didn’t have a full opportunity to present his case. Instead, it seems the Applicant doesn’t find the situation fair. I understand the result is disappointing for the Applicant but that doesn’t mean the General Division followed an unfair process. There is no arguable case the General Division didn’t follow a fair process. There are no additional errors in the General Division decision [ 17 ] Because the Applicant is self-represented, I reviewed the file, listened to the hearing recording, and looked at the decision the Applicant is appealing. I haven’t found any reviewable error that the General Division may have made. Footnote 10 [ 18 ] The General Division provided the Applicant with a fair process. It 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 [ 19 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 This was in a letter to the Applicant dated January 8, 2026. Under section 4 of the Notice of Appeal form to the Appeal Division, it explains that permission to appeal must first be granted. It says there must be an arguable case the General Division made an error and lists the errors that can be considered. See AD1-3 for the Application to the Appeal Division form the Applicant filled out. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 56(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( [NAME]). Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See section 58(2) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 [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 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 58(1) of the [NAME]. The grounds listed are also known as errors. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD3-17 the Applicant’s request for reconsideration to the Commission and GD2-7 the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal to the General Division. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See the General Division decision at paragraph 23. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See the General Division decision at paragraph 25. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See the General Division decision at paragraph 28. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 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 10 referrer