Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal Employment Insurance Antedating

Citation: KR  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  40 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated November 26, 2025 (GE-25-2307) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 22, 2026 File number: AD-25-838 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. K. R.’s appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] K. R. is the Claimant. He applied for Employment Insurance regular benefits in December 2021 and collected benefits for a few months. He ended up getting a job, but only briefly until March 2022. He didn’t re-apply for benefits after he stopped working in March 2022. [ 3 ] A few years later, in February 2025, he asked the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) to antedate his claim to March 9, 2022. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] The Commission refused to antedate his claim to the earlier date because it found that he didn’t have good cause for the delay in applying for benefits. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The General Division concluded the same and dismissed his appeal. Footnote 3 [ 6 ] The Claimant wants permission to appeal. He argues that the General Division made a legal error and important factual errors. Footnote 4 [ 7 ] 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 5 Issues [ 8 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made any legal errors or important factual errors when it decided that the Claimant’s claim couldn’t be antedated to the earlier date? Analysis [ 9 ] The law says that I can consider four types of errors, and they include, a failure to follow a fair process, jurisdictional errors, legal errors, and important factual errors. Footnote 6 These are often called “reviewable errors” and are based on the grounds of appeal. [ 10 ] 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 7 [ 11 ] The Claimant set out his reasons for appealing, and I have considered them. Footnote 8 I’ve also reviewed the General Division decision and the file record. I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal The Claimant’s arguments to the Appeal Division [ 12 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division made legal and important factual errors regarding his mental health timeline. He explained that his mental-health condition existed before his formal diagnosis. [ 13 ] He also argues that the General Division applied the “reasonable and prudent person” test too strictly. He submits that he was experiencing major life stresses such as preparing for a child in 2022 and housing issues. [ 14 ] He is asking the Appeal Division to review and reconsider the General Division’s decision. There is no arguable case that the General Division made any legal errors [ 15 ] The General Division makes a legal error when it misinterprets a law, doesn’t follow a court decision it has to follow, or doesn’t give adequate reasons for its decision. Footnote 9 [ 16 ] The Claimant has to prove two things to get his application for EI benefits   antedated. Footnote 10 First, he has to prove she 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. [ 17 ] [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). Footnote 11 [ 18 ] 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. Footnote 12 [ 19 ] It isn’t arguable that the General Division misapplied the legal test. [ADDRESS] says that the obligation and duty to promptly file a claim is seen as very demanding and strict. This is why good cause for the delay exception is cautiously applied. Footnote 13 And antedate is an advantage that should be applied exceptionally. Footnote 14 [ 20 ] I see no arguable case that the General Division made any legal errors. Footnote 15 It correctly stated and applied the legal test, the law and case law in its decision. Footnote 16 There is no arguable case that the General Division made any important factual errors [ 21 ] A factual error happens when the General Division has “based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.” Footnote 17 [ 22 ] The General Division decided that the period of the delay ran from March 9, 2022, to February 13, 2025. Footnote 18 It found that he didn’t take any steps in 2022 to inquire about the time limits to apply for benefits. Footnote 19 [ 23 ] The General Division considered the Claimant’s reasons for applying late including his medical issues, the effect of the townhouse development receivership, other major life stresses, and a new child in 2022. Footnote 20 It concluded that he didn’t have good cause for making his application for benefits late. Footnote 21 And it decided that he didn’t have exceptional circumstances either. Footnote 22 [ 24 ] The General Division examined the Claimant’s reasons and explained with detailed reasons why he hadn’t shown good cause for the entire period of delay. It gave weight to the fact that he had a history of work and employment during the delay period and that he was focused on getting another job in 2022, instead of applying for benefits. Footnote 23 It also found that the medical evidence didn’t support all of his evidence about his health conditions and their impacts on him. Footnote 24 [ 25 ] The General Division is the trier of fact, and it was free to conclude, based on the evidence before it, that he didn’t have good cause to antedate his application. It explained that despite his mental health condition, the loss of his townhouse and the arrival of a child, he was still able to work in 2023 and in 2024. Footnote 25 And it concluded that a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have taken steps to inquire and apply for benefits earlier than he did. Footnote 26 [ 26 ] The General Division did make one typographical error when it wrote “2002” instead of “2022.” Throughout its decision, it used 2022, so this minor error didn’t affect the outcome and doesn’t amount to an important factual error. Footnote 27 [ 27 ] I acknowledge that the Claimant wants the Appeal Division to reconsider the General Division’s decision, but the Appeal Division has a limited role. So, I can’t intervene in order to reweigh the evidence about the application of settled legal principles to the facts of the case. Footnote 28 An appeal to the Appeal Division isn’t a new hearing in order to get a different or more favourable outcome. [ 28 ] I see no arguable case that the General Division based its decision on any important errors of fact and ignored or overlooked any important evidence. Footnote 29 Its key findings are consistent with the evidence. And I didn’t find any relevant evidence that the General Division might have ignored or misinterpreted. There are no other reasons for giving the Claimant permission to appeal. Footnote 30 Conclusion [ 29 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. It has no reasonable chance of success. Footnotes Footnote 1 See Claimant’s request to antedate at page GD3-14. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See Commission’s initial and reconsideration decision at pages GD3-16 and GD3-125. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See General Division decision at pages AD1-14 to AD1-32. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See Application to the Appeal Division at pages AD1-1 to AD1-32. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [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 7 referrer Footnote 8 See pages AD1-1 to AD1-32. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 58(1)(b) of the  DESD  Act. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See section 10(4) of the  Employment Insurance Act  ( EI  Act). Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See  Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2010  FCA  336. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See  Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2011  FCA  266 at paragraph 4. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See  Canada (Attorney General)   v   [NAME] , 2008  FCA  118 at paragraph 7. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See  Canada (Attorney General)   v   [NAME] , 2009  FCA  1;  Canada (Attorney General)   v   [NAME] , 2008  FCA  145;  Canada (Attorney General)   v   [NAME] , 2008  FCA  118;  Canada (Attorney General)   v   [NAME] , A-549-92. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See section 58(1)(b) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See paragraphs 8–14, 49, 51, 62, 70 and 74 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See paragraph 61 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See paragraph 48 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See paragraphs 21-33, 34-38 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See paragraphs 39 and 75 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See paragraphs 51 and 52 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See paragraphs 42–44 and 66–67 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See paragraphs 54–58, 65 and 68 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See paragraphs 57 and 72 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See paragraph 45 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See paragraph 45 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 [NAME]   v   Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  118. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See section 58(1)(c) of the  DESD  Act. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 The Federal Court has suggested such a review in decisions like  [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2016  FC  874 and  [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General),  2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 30 referrer