Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal EI Maternity Benefits Denial

Citation: SS  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  12 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated November 12, 2025 (GE-25-2815) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 12, 2026 File number: AD-25-798 On this page Decision Overview 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. She applied for Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) maternity benefits. [ 3 ] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) said the Applicant didn’t have enough hours to qualify for maternity benefits. 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. It noted the Applicant’s circumstances but concluded the law didn’t allow what the Applicant wanted. [ 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. Issue [ 6 ] Is there an arguable case the General Division made an important error of fact when it decided the Applicant didn’t have enough hours to qualify for maternity benefits? 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. There is no arguable case the General Division made an important error of fact when it decided the Applicant didn’t have enough hours to maternity benefits [ 10 ] An important 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 5 This means the General Division had to ignore, misunderstand or overlook the evidence in some way. [ 11 ] The Applicant hasn’t said the General Division ignored, misunderstood, or overlooked any of the evidence. Instead, she says she hopes that an exception can be made for her unusual situation. [ 12 ] The Applicant explained that she didn’t want to stop working. She unexpectedly gave birth to her child at 20 weeks. Footnote 6 The baby didn’t survive and she, understandably, needed time to heal and grieve. [ 13 ] The Applicant said if she worked to the baby’s full term, she would have had enough hours to qualify for [NAME] benefits. She asked the General Division to make an exception in her case because the lack of [NAME] support has been difficult. Footnote 7 [ 14 ] The Applicant’s situation is sad. The General Division recognized that. Footnote 8 But the Tribunal doesn’t have the authority to do what the Applicant is asking. The Tribunal can only apply the law as it currently exists. [ 15 ] The Applicant doesn’t dispute that she needs 600 hours to qualify for [NAME] benefits. Footnote 9 This is what the law requires, as a minimum, for special benefits like maternity benefits. [ 16 ] The Applicant doesn’t dispute that she only had 360 insurable hours. Footnote 10 This means the Applicant doesn’t meet the minimum threshold she needs to qualify for [NAME] maternity benefits. [ 17 ] The law doesn’t allow the Tribunal to make the exception the Applicant is requesting. Unfortunately, this means she doesn’t qualify for [NAME] maternity benefits. [ 18 ] There is no arguable case the General Division made an important error of fact. It understood and didn’t overlook or ignore what the Applicant was arguing. It couldn’t do what the Applicant wanted. But this isn’t a reviewable error. There are no additional errors in the General Division decision [ 19 ] 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 11 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 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD2-5, the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal to the General Division. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See GD2-8 of the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal to the General Division. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 21 to 24. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 9 to 17. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 18 and 19. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 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 11 referrer