Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal EI Benefits Reconsideration

Citation: [NAME] v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  29 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-25-3157) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 19, 2026 File number: AD-26-43 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 him the Claimant because this application is about his claim for Employment Insurance ( EI ) benefits. The Respondent is the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, which I will refer to as the Commission. [ 3 ] The Claimant received wages from his employer in the period from November 7, 2021, to December 11, 2021, at a time when he had an active claim for EI benefits. He did not declare these wages as earnings on his claim reports. [ 4 ] In June 2025, the Commission reviewed his claim and reconsidered the benefits that it had paid the Claimant for that period. It decided that the wages were earnings and it allocated them to the weeks in which they were earned. This meant that the Claimant would have to repay an overpayment of benefits. [ 5 ] The Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider but it would not change its decision. He appealed to the General Division, which dismissed his appeal. The Claimant is now 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 of law or that it acted unfairly. Issue: [ 7 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error of law by accepting that the Commission could reconsider the Claimant’s benefits after more than three years had lapsed? I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal General legal principles that govern leave to appeal applications [ 8 ] For the Claimant’s application for leave to appeal to succeed, his reasons for appealing would have to fit within the “grounds of appeal.” The grounds of appeal identify the kinds of errors that I can consider. [ 9 ] I may consider only the following errors: a) The General Division hearing process was not fair in some way. b) 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 (error of jurisdiction). c) The General Division based its decision on an important error of fact. d) The General Division made an error of law when making its decision. Footnote 1 [ 10 ] To grant this application for leave and permit the appeal process to move forward, I must find that there is a reasonable chance of success on one or more grounds of appeal. Other court decisions have equated a reasonable chance of success to an “arguable case.” Footnote 2 Error of jurisdiction or law [ 11 ] The Claimant selected two grounds of appeal when he completed his application to the Appeal Division. The selected grounds were an “error of jurisdiction” and an “error of law.” [ 12 ] From what he said in his explanation for his appeal, it appears both kinds of error relate to his assertion that the Commission was not authorized to reconsider its payment of benefits so long ago. [ 13 ] When the Claimant’s appeal was at the General Division, the Claimant did not dispute that he was paid wages between November 7, 2021, and December 11, 2021. He did not dispute the payment amounts or that they were earnings, and he did not dispute the allocation. The Claimant questioned the length of time the Commission took to reconsider the benefits it had paid him, but he did not otherwise express concern with how the Commission decided he had been overpaid. [ 14 ] In this application, the Claimant argued that the General Division made an error of law because the Commission should not be permitted to take so long to reconsider his benefits. He asserts that the General Division member told him that, “the [Commission] went back further than the allotted months that they can go back and [the member] said multiple times during the meeting that he was unsure as to why they did this and went back further than required.” Footnote 3 [ 15 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of law. The law says that the Commission may reconsider a decision within 36 months, or that it may reconsider within 72 months when it is of the opinion that a false or misleading statement or representation had been made in connection with the claim. Footnote 4 The General Division said the same thing in its decision. Footnote 5 [ 16 ] The General Division confirmed that the Commission had authority to extend the limitation to 72 months in this case. It relied on its finding that the Claimant had made false representations on his claim reports. Footnote 6 [ 17 ] Even if the General Division member had made the comments that the Claimant attributed to him, this would not change the law, or mean that the member could make a decision that disregarded the law. But, in any event, the Claimant is mistaken as to what the member said. I have listened to the audio record of the General Division hearing. The member repeatedly acknowledged that it had been “a long time,” but he said nothing to suggest that the Commission did not have the authority to reconsider after more than 36 months where a false statement or statements have been made. In fact, the member said just the opposite. Footnote 7 Procedural fairness [ 18 ] When the Claimant explained why he was appealing, he noted that it was unfair that the Commission reconsidered his benefits after such a long time. [ 19 ] He referred to his stable employment record and his contributions to the EI program. He also said that he was “discriminated” against due to factors outside of his control. He did not elaborate on these factors, but he told the General Division about financial pressures due to Covid and other personal circumstances at the time that he was overpaid. Footnote 8 I presume these are the factors to which he is referring. [ 20 ] The Claimant believes the Commission acted unfairly. He disagrees with the General Division’s decision, so he probably feels its decision is also unfair. [ 21 ] However, there is no arguable case that the General Division made the kind of error of procedural fairness that I can consider. [ 22 ] Parties before the General Division have a right to certain procedural protections. These include a party’s right to be heard and to know the case against them, and the right to an unbiased decision-maker. [ 23 ] An error of procedural fairness is one which denies or interferes with these rights. It is not about whether a party feels the law is fair, or whether they feel a decision is unfair because they disagree with the result. Furthermore, it is only an error if the General Division itself acted in a way that was procedurally unfair. For the purpose of this application, procedural fairness is not concerned with the fairness of the Commission’s process. [ 24 ] The Claimant did not say that the General Division did not give him a fair chance to present his case at his hearing, or to respond to the Commission’s case. He has not complained that the General Division member was biased or that he had already prejudged the matter. [ 25 ] When I read the decision and review the appeal record, I do not see that the General Division did anything, or failed to do anything, that causes me to question the fairness of its process. [ 26 ] The Claimant’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success. Conclusion [ 27 ] I am refusing permission to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 This is a plain-language version of the grounds of appeal. The full text is in section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESDA ). Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v [NAME] , 2007 FCA  41; and [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2017 FC  259. Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 See AD1-3. Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 See section 52(1) and 51(5) of the Employment Insurance Act . Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 See para 25 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 See para 27 of the General Division decision. See also Claimant’s admission of false statements at GD3-58, and claim reports at GD3-17 to GD3-33. Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 Listen to the audio record of the General Division hearing at time stamp 00:07:45 and 00:23:40. Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 See GD2-5. Return to footnote 8