Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal Employment Insurance Decision
📌 In brief
The Social Security Tribunal denied a claimant's request to appeal an Employment Insurance decision, as the claimant failed to provide sufficient reasons to show a reasonable chance of winning the appeal.
⚖️ Legal holding
A claimant seeking permission to appeal must provide reasonable grounds to demonstrate a reasonable chance of success.
📖 What the law says
This section allows the Commission to reconsider a claim for benefits within 36 months after the benefits have been paid or would have been payable, and outlines the process for notifying the claimant if the Commission determines the person was not entitled to the benefits.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Appeal Division denied the claimant's request for permission to appeal due to lack of reasonable grounds.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Appeal Division denied the claimant's request for permission to appeal an Employment Insurance decision, citing insufficient grounds demonstrating a reasonable chance of success.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Citation: [NAME] v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026 SST 225 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated February 11, 2026 (GE-26-72) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: March 23, 2026 File number: AD-26-172 On this page Decision Overview Issue I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal the General Division decision is denied. [ 2 ] This means A. H.’s appeal won’t go forward. Footnote 1 Overview [ 3 ] A. H. is the Claimant in this case. He is asking for permission to appeal a General Division decision. I will give him permission if he has a reasonable chance of winning his appeal. [ 4 ] The General Division decided the Commission used its power properly, fairly, and in time when it reconsidered his claim. Footnote 2 It also decided he didn’t report some of his employment income during his EI claim. Finally, it decided the Commission correctly determined the amount of unreported income, and correctly allocated it to weeks in his claim. Footnote 3 So, the General Division dismissed his appeal. [ 5 ] This left him with an overpayment and debt. Footnote 4 [ 6 ] The Claimant disagrees with the General Division decision. On his application to appeal, he checked the box that says the General Division made an important factual error. [ 7 ] But he hasn’t given any reasons or an explanation to support that error. And I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division made that error. This means he doesn’t have a reasonable chance of winning his appeal. And his appeal can’t go forward. Issue [ 8 ] Does the Claimant’s appeal have a reasonable chance of success? I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal [ 9 ] For the reasons that follow, I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal. The permission to appeal test screens out appeals without a reasonable chance of success Footnote 5 [ 10 ] The Claimant has applied for permission to appeal. I give permission when there’s an arguable case the General Division made an error that gives a person a reasonable chance of winning their appeal. Footnote 6 [ 11 ] The law says I can consider four types of errors—the General Division used an unfair procedure, or made a jurisdictional error, a legal error, or an important factual error. Footnote 7 No arguable case the General Division made an important factual error [ 12 ] The General Division makes an important factual error when it bases its decision on a factual finding it reached by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. Footnote 8 Relevant means evidence that fits into the legal test. [ 13 ] The Claimant checked the important factual error box on his application form. Footnote 9 But he didn’t explain or give details or examples of how the General Division made this error. I wrote to him and gave him another chance to explain. He didn’t respond by the deadline I set. [ 14 ] When a person doesn’t explain or give details about an alleged error, their argument about that error has no reasonable chance of success. Footnote 10 So, the Claimant’s important factual error argument has no reasonable chance of success. [ 15 ] Before making my decision, I reviewed the documents in the General Division file. Footnote 11 Then I compared the evidence from the documents to the General Division’s factual findings and the evidence it used to reach those findings. Footnote 12 Unfortunately for the Claimant, I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division ignored or misunderstood relevant evidence. In other words, I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division made an important factual error. Conclusion [ 16 ] The Claimant’s appeal doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success. This means his appeal can’t go forward. Footnotes Footnote 1 The Appeal Division process has two steps. (1) A person applies for permission to appeal a General Division decision. If they don’t get permission, their appeal ends. (2) If they get permission, they get to argue their appeal in writing or at a hearing. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 52(5) of the Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act), and Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , A-694-94 ( FCA ). Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See sections 35 and 36(4) of the Employment Insurance Regulations . Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See sections 19(2), 52(2) and (3), and 43 of the EI Act. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act); [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2016 FC 1282 at paragraph 32. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2016 FC 11. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 Section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act says it is a ground of appeal where the General Division based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. I have described this ground of appeal using plain language, based on the words in the Act and the cases that have interpreted the Act. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See AD1-3. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FC 1326 at paragraph 59. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD2, GD3, and GD4. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 The Appeal Division should not apply the leave to appeal test mechanistically and in some circumstances should review the General Division file. [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2016 FC 874; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2016 FC 615; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2017 FC 391. Return to footnote 12 referrer
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant checked the box indicating the General Division made an important factual error but did not provide any reasons or explanations to support this claim.
- The claimant failed to respond to the request for further details or examples of how the General Division allegedly made an important factual error.
- The claimant did not provide any reasonable chance of success arguments beyond checking a box, which was insufficient to meet the criteria for granting permission to appeal.
- The reviewer found no arguable case that the General Division ignored or misunderstood relevant evidence.
- The claimant did not present any evidence or argument that demonstrated a reasonable chance of success in overturning the General Division's decision.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Appeal Division denied the claimant's request for permission to appeal an Employment Insurance decision.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant had a reasonable chance of success in appealing an Employment Insurance decision.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to deny the claimant's request because he did not provide sufficient reasons to demonstrate a reasonable chance of success.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and 52(5) of the Employment Insurance Act were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most critical argument was the claimant's failure to provide adequate reasons to show a reasonable chance of success.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the claimant who sought permission to appeal.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation must provide strong reasons to demonstrate a reasonable chance of success to obtain permission to appeal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered.