Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal EI Benefits Decision

Citation: [NAME] v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  [NAME]  66 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 15, 2025 (GE-25-3071) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 30, 2026 File number: AD-26-42 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 she made a claim for Employment Insurance ( EI ) benefits. The Respondent is the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, which I will call the Commission. [ 3 ] After the Claimant lost her job, she applied for EI benefits. The Commission decided she was entitled to 17 weeks of benefits. And the Claimant received 17 weeks of benefits. [ 4 ] The Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider its decision because 17 weeks was not enough. The Commission would not change its decision, so she appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal. [ 5 ] The General Division agreed with the Commission that the Claimant could not receive more than 17 weeks of benefits, and it dismissed her appeal. Now the Claimant is asking the Appeal Division for permission to appeal. [ 6 ] I am refusing permission to appeal. The Claimant has not made out an arguable case that the General Division made an error that I can consider. Issue [ 7 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error of procedural fairness? I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal [ 8 ] The only ground of appeal that the Claimant selected in completing her application to the Appeal Division was the ground of appeal concerned with procedural fairness. She does not believe the General Division decision is fair because she was having trouble finding a job and she needs more support than 17 weeks of benefits. [ 9 ] However, there is no arguable case that the General Division acted in a way that was procedurally unfair. Procedural fairness is concerned with the fairness of the process. It is not concerned with whether a party feels that the decision result is fair. [ 10 ] Parties before the General Division have a right to certain procedural protections such as the right to be heard and to know the case against them, and the right to an unbiased decision-maker. [ 11 ] The Claimant did not say that she did not have a fair chance to present her case at her hearing, or to respond to the Commission’s case. She has not complained that the General Division member was biased or that the member had prejudged her case. [ 12 ] The Claimant does not think it is fair that she should only receive 17 weeks of benefits. However, she had agreed with the Commission that she had only 771 hours of insurable employment, and that she resided in the Vancouver economic region. She did not dispute that the unemployment rate was 6.7% in that region at the time she applied. [ 13 ] The [NAME] ( EI Act) calculates the maximum number of weeks a claimant may receive in their benefit period by using their hours of insurable employment and the unemployment rate in their region. Footnote 1 It says that the maximum “shall,” or must, be calculated using Schedule I. In other words, it is mandatory to calculate the maximum number of weeks of benefits using Schedule I. [ 14 ] According to Schedule I, the Claimant’s maximum is 17 weeks of benefits because she had 771 hours of insurable employment and because a 6.7% regional rate of unemployment applied. [ 15 ] The Claimant says that she had difficulty finding employment and does not feel that 17 weeks of benefits gave her enough financial support. I sympathize with her difficulties, but the EI Act says that she is only allowed 17 weeks of benefits. She may believe that the EI Act is unfair, but it is the law in this case. Neither the Commission nor the Social Security Tribunal have the power to ignore the law or change it. [ 16 ] The Claimant’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success. Conclusion [ 17 ] I am refusing permission to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 12(2) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 1