Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal Employment Insurance Benefits Case
📌 In brief
The claimant asked for permission to appeal after being denied additional weeks of Employment Insurance benefits. The Social Security Tribunal denied the request, stating that the Employment Insurance Regulations were clear and unambiguous.
⚖️ Legal holding
The Employment Insurance Regulations are clear and unambiguous regarding the eligibility criteria for additional weeks of benefits.
📖 What the law says
This regulation outlines the requirements for a pilot project aimed at evaluating the costs and impacts of exempting claimants from making periodic claims for benefits under certain conditions.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's request for permission to appeal was denied due to lack of ambiguity in the Employment Insurance Regulations.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant requested permission to appeal the denial of additional weeks of Employment Insurance benefits. The Social Security Tribunal denied the request, finding the Employment Insurance Regulations clear and unambiguous.
📚 Full judgment Official document
[TRANSLATION] Citation: BC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026 SST 14 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 9, 2025 (GE-25-3137) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 14, 2026 File number: AD-26-8 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead. Overview [ 2 ] The Applicant (Claimant) established an initial claim for [NAME] ) benefits effective March 30, 2025. [ 3 ] The Claimant asked the Respondent (Commission) to reconsider its refusal to pay him an additional 20 weeks for long-tenured workers under Pilot Project No. 24. [ 4 ] On reconsideration, the Commission maintained its initial decision. The Claimant appealed to the Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] The General Division decided that the measure extending benefits applied to claims established between June 15, 2025, and April 11, 2026, for long-tenured workers. The Claimant didn’t meet all the criteria set out in the law because his benefits claim was initiated outside the reference period, on March 30, 2025. The General Division dismissed his appeal. [ 6 ] The Claimant is asking the Appeal Division for permission to appeal the General Division decision. He argues that the General Division didn’t consider the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment in [NAME] or its application of Driedge r’s method for interpreting the law. Footnote 1 [ 7 ] I have to decide whether there is an arguable case that the General Division made a reviewable error based on which the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. [ 8 ] I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal. Issue [ 9 ] Does the Claimant’s appeal have a reasonable chance of success based on a reviewable error the General Division may have made? Analysis [ 10 ] The law specifies the only grounds of appeal of a General Division decision. Footnote 2 These reviewable errors are the following: The General Division hearing process wasn’t fair in some way. The General Division didn’t decide an issue that it should have decided. Or, it decided something it didn’t have the power to decide. The General Division based its decision on an important error of fact. The General Division made an error of law when making its decision. [ 11 ] An application for permission to appeal is a preliminary step to a hearing on the merits. It is an initial hurdle for the Claimant to meet, but it is lower than the one that has to be met at the hearing of the appeal on the merits. At the permission to appeal stage, the Claimant doesn’t have to prove his case; he has to instead establish that his appeal has a reasonable chance of success. This means that he has to show that there is arguably a reviewable error based on which the appeal might succeed. [ 12 ] I will give permission to appeal if I am satisfied that at least one of the Claimant’s stated grounds of appeal gives the appeal a reasonable chance of success. I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal [ 13 ] It isn’t in dispute that the Claimant established an initial claim for EI benefits effective March 30, 2025. [ 14 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division didn’t consider the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment in [NAME] or its application of Driedge r’s method for interpreting the law. [ 15 ] I note that the General Division did in fact consider the Claimant’s argument. But it decided that the wording of the Employment Insurance Regulations ( EI Regulations) isn’t ambiguous because section 77.999(2) explicitly says that the additional 20 weeks apply to claims established between June 15, 2025, and April 11, 2026. There was no ambiguity in the legislator’s intention about the start date, the timeframe, or the fact that earlier claims were excluded. [ 16 ] Unlike in [NAME], where the Court had to interpret the law to determine whether the employer’s bankruptcy could be considered a dismissal under the Act Respecting Labour Standards , it isn’t necessary or appropriate to interpret the clear wording of section 77.999(2) of the EI Regulations. Its meaning and scope are clear from a simple reading. [ 17 ] What the Claimant is asking for is to extend the period that the legislator specifically set so he can receive an additional 20 weeks. As the General Division noted, the Tribunal doesn’t have the authority to rewrite the law, even for reasons of fairness. Footnote 3 [ 18 ] After reviewing the appeal file, the General Division decision, and the arguments in support of the application for permission to appeal, I am of the view that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. The Claimant hasn’t raised any issue that could justify setting aside the decision under review. Conclusion [ 19 ] Permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead. Footnotes Footnote 1 [COMPANY]. (Re) , 1998 CanLII 837 ( SCC ), [1998] 1 SCR 27. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 See Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2011 FCA 205. Return to footnote 3
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The Employment Insurance Regulations clearly specify the period for eligibility for additional weeks of benefits.
- The regulations are not ambiguous and do not require further interpretation.
- The Tribunal does not have the authority to change the law to accommodate individual cases.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The Claimant argued that the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment should have been considered.
- The Claimant requested an extension of the eligibility period to receive additional weeks of benefits.
- The Claimant suggested that the Tribunal should have the power to rewrite the law for fairness.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant was denied permission to appeal the denial of additional weeks of Employment Insurance benefits.
What was the dispute about?
The claimant argued that he should receive additional weeks of Employment Insurance benefits under a pilot project.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the Employment Insurance Regulations were clear and unambiguous, denying the claimant's request for permission to appeal.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Employment Insurance Regulations, s. 77.999(2) were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The claimant argued that the Employment Insurance Regulations were ambiguous and should be interpreted in his favour.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may find it difficult to appeal if the relevant regulations are clear and unambiguous.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify