Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal EI Benefits Case

Citation: [NAME]  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  [NAME]  82 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 2, 2025 (GE-25-2750) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: February 6, 2026 File number: AD-25-831 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matters Issue Analysis I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. [NAME].’s appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] [NAME]. is the Claimant. He stopped working on March 31, 2025, and applied for Employment Insurance regular benefits on June 23, 2025. Footnote 1 [ 3 ] The Claimant asked the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) to antedate his application to April 1, 2025. Footnote 2 [ 4 ] The Commission refused to antedate his application to the earlier date. It decided that he didn’t have good cause for the delay in applying for benefits. Footnote 3 [ 5 ] The General Division concluded the same and dismissed his appeal. Footnote 4 The Claimant is now asking for permission to appeal. Footnote 5 [ 6 ] I am denying permission to appeal because the Claimant’s arguments don’t show that he has an arguable case upon which the appeal might succeed. So, I can’t give him permission to appeal. Footnote 6 Preliminary matters The General Division’s decision in file GE-25-2750 (antedate) [ 7 ] The Claimant filed two appeals to the General Division. It heard both files together but issued two separate decisions because the legal issues were different. Footnote 7 [ 8 ] The Claimant is now appealing both decisions made by the General Division to the Appeal Division. Similarly, I am issuing two separate Appeal Division decisions. [ 9 ] This decision only involves file GE-25-2750 where the General Division decided the antedate issue. I mailed a letter to the Claimant asking for additional information and he replied [ 10 ] I reviewed the Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division, and I noticed that it was incomplete because he didn’t identify any reasons for making his appeal, or the types of errors he thinks the General Division made. [ 11 ] So, I sent the Claimant a letter asking him for more information and explained with examples the types of errors I could consider. Footnote 8 Since we communicate with the Claimant by mail, I gave him extra time to respond. [ 12 ] The Claimant responded to my letter by sending back three separate replies. Footnote 9 One of his responses arrived a day after the deadline. I accepted the late reply because it was relevant to his application, it wasn’t new, it wouldn’t cause any delays, and it wasn’t unfair to the Commission. Footnote 10 I also considered that it was only a short delay likely due to mailing (1 day after the deadline). [ 13 ] As of today’s date, the Tribunal hasn’t received anything further from the Claimant. Issue [ 14 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made any important factual or legal errors when it decided the Claimant didn’t have good cause to antedate his application to the earlier date? Analysis [ 15 ] The law says that I can consider four types of errors, and they include, a failure to follow a fair process, jurisdictional, legal, and important factual errors. Footnote 11 These errors are based on the grounds of appeal. [ 16 ] I can only give the Claimant permission to appeal if there’s an “arguable case” that the General Division made a reviewable error that gives his appeal a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 12 [ 17 ] I’ve looked at the General Division decision, the Claimant’s application to Appeal Division, the documents he sent to the Tribunal, and all of the file documents before making my decision. I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal There is no arguable case that the General Division made any important factual errors or legal errors [ 18 ] When I asked the Claimant to explain with reasons why he was appealing the antedate decision, he wrote back saying that “two appeals have to be done.” Footnote 13 As noted above, the Appeal Division has created two separate appeal files, and two separate decisions will be issued. [ 19 ] The Claimant also wrote that the facts weren’t understood because the infrastructure support was not at the new hospital, so the work had to be done by other individuals. Footnote 14 As well, he says that some information is totally incorrect. Footnote 15 [ 20 ] The Claimant hasn’t identified the type of errors he thinks the General Division made. Footnote 16 But I think he might be arguing that the General Division made important factual errors so I will start with that and then consider legal errors. [ 21 ] The General Division makes an important factual error when it reaches its decision by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. Footnote 17 [ 22 ] The Claimant has to prove two things to get his application for EI benefits antedated. First, he has to prove he had good cause for the delay during the entire period of delay. Second, he has to prove that he qualified for  EI  benefits on the earlier date. Footnote 18 [ 23 ] [ADDRESS] says that barring exceptional circumstances, claimants are expected to take reasonably prompt steps to understand their obligations under the  Employment Insurance Act  ( EI  Act). [ 24 ] To establish good cause, the Court also says that claimants must be able to show that they did what a reasonable person in their situation would have done to satisfy themselves of their rights and obligations under the  EI  Act. [ 25 ] The General Division in this case found that that the period of delay ran from April 1, 2025, to June 23, 2025. Footnote 19 This is the period that the Claimant had to prove that he had good cause for the entire period of delay. [ 26 ] The General Division considered the Claimant’s reasons for applying for benefits late, including that he was not aware of a timeframe to apply for benefits, the hospital he worked at was closing, he spent some time at his cabin, and discussed his situation with his friends. As well, he hadn’t received a copy of his Record of Employment ( ROE ) when he stopped working and is in financial distress. Footnote 20 [ 27 ] The General Division concluded that he didn’t have good cause for the delay in applying benefits. It explained that ignorance of the law doesn’t amount to good cause. Footnote 21 It found that a reasonable and prudent person would have taken some action after he stopped working to inquire about EI benefits. Footnote 22 It also decided that there were no exceptional circumstances that could excuse his delay. Footnote 23 The Claimant admitted that there was nothing preventing him from applying sooner than he did. Footnote 24 [ 28 ] I see no arguable case that the General Division made any important errors of fact. Footnote 25 Its key findings are consistent with the evidence before the General Division. [ 29 ] The Claimant might disagree with the General Division’s decision, but that isn’t a reviewable error. The General Division was entitled to weigh the evidence and decide that he hadn’t proven good cause for the delay in applying for benefits. [ 30 ] I’ve also reviewed whether there was an arguable case that the General Division made any legal errors. [ 31 ] The General Division makes a legal error when it misinterprets a law or doesn’t follow a court decision it had to follow. [ 32 ] The General Division’s decision shows that it correctly stated the law and relevant case law in its decision. Footnote 26 The case law says that ignorance of the law, even if coupled with good faith, doesn’t constitute good cause. Footnote 27 [ 33 ] I see no arguable case that the General Division made any legal errors either. Footnote 28 There are no other reasons for giving the Claimant permission to appeal. Conclusion [ 34 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the Claimant’s appeal will not proceed. It has no reasonable chance of success. Footnotes Footnote 1 See pages GD3-3 to GD3-15 and GD3-16 to GD3-17. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See page GD3-18. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See Commission’s initial and reconsideration decision at pages GD3-20 and GD3-25. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See General Division decision at pages AD1A-1 to AD1A-7. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See Application to the Appeal Division at pages AD1-1 to AD1-6. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See paragraphs 8–11 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See Tribunal letter dated January 7, 2026. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See pages AD1B-1 to AD1B-25, AD1C-1 to AD1C-2 and AD1-1 to AD1D-2. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 The deadline to reply was January 26, 2026. The Tribunal received the Claimant’s reply on January 27, 2026 (see pages AD1D-1 to AD1D-2). Also see, sections 19(2) and 42 of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure ( [NAME]). Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2016  FC  11 at paragraph 12 and sections 56(1) and 58(2) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See pages AD1B-1 and AD1D-1.There are two separate files at the Appeal Division. The other file number is AD-26-832. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See pages AD1B-1 and AD1C-1. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See page AD1C-1. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See page AD1-2. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 This is a plain language wording of section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act, which says an error of fact happens when the General Division has “based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.” Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See section 10(4) of the Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act). Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See paragraph 16 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See paragraphs 19–22 and 29 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See paragraphs 27–28 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See paragraphs 29 and 31 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See paragraph 30 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See paragraph 28 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See paragraphs 13, 14–18, 27 and 30 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2011  FCA  266 at paragraph 4. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See section 58(1)(b) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 28 referrer