Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal Employment Insurance Decision
📌 In brief
The Social Security Tribunal denied a claimant's request for permission to appeal an Employment Insurance decision. The claimant argued that the General Division unfairly applied the law and procedures, but the Tribunal found no basis for an appeal.
⚖️ Legal holding
The General Division correctly applied the law and procedures in denying the claimant's appeal.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's appeal for permission to appeal was denied due to lack of an arguable case of error by the General Division.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Social Security Tribunal denied the claimant's request for permission to appeal an Employment Insurance decision, finding no arguable case of error by the General Division in applying the law and procedures.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Citation: AL v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026 SST 168 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated February 4, 2026 (GE-26-11) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: March 9, 2026 File number: AD-26-118 On this page Decision Overview Issue I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is denied. [ 2 ] This means [NAME].’s appeal won’t go forward. Footnote 1 Overview [ 3 ] [NAME]. is the Claimant in this case. She has applied for permission to appeal a General Division decision. [ 4 ] The General Division decided two legal issues. The temporary provisions of Pilot Project No. 24 Establishing Measures to Respond to Major Changes in Economic Conditions (Pilot Project No. 24) didn’t apply to her EI claim. Footnote 2 The Commission correctly calculated the number of weeks of EI benefits she was entitled to. So it dismissed her appeal. [ 5 ] The Claimant says the General Division breached procedural fairness. She’s asking the Appeal Division to make an exception to the benefit period start date for the 20-week extension of benefits under Pilot Project No. 24. [ 6 ] An Appeal Division application isn’t an opportunity to make the same arguments you made in an unsuccessful General Division appeal. The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division process was unfair. And I didn’t find an arguable case of a factual or legal error. So I can’t give her permission to appeal. Issue [ 7 ] Has the Claimant shown the General Division used an unfair process to decide her appeal? I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal [ 8 ] For the reasons that follow, I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal. The permission to appeal test screens out appeals that have no reasonable chance of success Footnote 3 [ 9 ] 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 claimant a reasonable chance of winning their appeal. Footnote 4 [ 10 ] 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 5 No arguable case the General Division process was unfair [ 11 ] The General Division had to use a fair process to decide the Claimant’s appeal. Footnote 6 This is called procedural fairness or natural justice. The General Division had to let the Claimant know the Commission’s case give the Claimant a full and fair opportunity to respond to that case with evidence and arguments be impartial (in other words, not prejudiced or biased) Footnote 7 [ 12 ] The Claimant didn’t raise any concerns with the fairness of the hearing. She hasn’t argued the General Division member wasn’t impartial. And nothing in the General Division file suggested this type of unfairness. [ 13 ] Her reasons show me she thinks the law—and the General Division decision that followed the law—are unfair to her. But this doesn’t count as a procedural fairness error. And there’s no arguable case the General Division used an unfair process. No other reason I can give permission to appeal [ 14 ] The Claimant didn’t dispute any of the relevant facts or the General Divisions factual findings about her qualifying hours, the regional rate of unemployment, her last day of work, or the start date of her benefit period (May 4, 2025). And there isn’t an arguable case the General Division based its decision on a factual error it made by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. [ 15 ] I reviewed the General Division decision and the law. There isn’t an arguable case it made a legal error. [ 16 ] There isn’t an arguable case it misinterpreted the time-related eligibility section of Pilot Project No.
24. It only applies to a benefit period that started between June 15, 2015 and April 11, 2026. Footnote 8 [ 17 ] The General Division clearly and thoroughly set out why the Claimant’s argument the General Division should make an exception to the law could not succeed. The courts have stated the Tribunal can’t ignore the law or make exceptions to it. That’s what the Claimant is asking the Tribunal to do. [ 18 ] The Claimant made the same exception argument at the General Division as she makes in her application to appeal. Footnote 9 Unfortunately for the Claimant, the Appeal Division process isn’t a do-over. Simply disagreeing with the General Division’s findings, or the outcome of the appeal, doesn’t show an arguable case the General Division made an error. Footnote 10 For her appeal to go forward to a hearing, she has to show an arguable case the General Division made an error. She hasn’t done that. And I looked, but didn’t find, an arguable case of a factual or legal error. Conclusion [ 19 ] The Claimant’s appeal doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success. So, her appeal can’t go forward. Footnotes Footnote 1 The Appeal Division process has two steps. First, a person applies for permission to appeal a General Division decision. If they don’t get permission, their appeal can’t go forward. Second, if they get permission, they get to argue their case in writing or at a hearing. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See section 77.995 of the Employment Insurance Regulations ( EI Regulations). Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 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 3 Footnote 4 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2016 FC 11. Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 This is a ground of appeal under section 58(1)(a) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 See Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69; Kuk v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FCA 74. Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 See section 77.999(2) of the EI Regulations. Return to footnote 8 Footnote 9 See GD2-10 and AD1-6. Return to footnote 9 Footnote 10 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2016 FC 874 at paragraph 20. Return to footnote 10
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The General Division correctly applied the law regarding the Pilot Project No. 24 eligibility criteria.
- The General Division provided a thorough explanation for rejecting the claimant's request for an exception to the law.
- The claimant did not provide any new evidence or arguments that were not already considered by the General Division.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant argued that the General Division process was procedurally unfair, but provided no concrete examples of bias or lack of impartiality.
- The claimant attempted to challenge the General Division's factual findings without presenting any new evidence or disputing the established facts.
- The claimant requested the Appeal Division to reconsider the same arguments previously made and rejected by the General Division.
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 an Employment Insurance decision.
What was the dispute about?
The claimant argued that the General Division unfairly applied the law and procedures in her Employment Insurance case.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to deny permission to appeal, stating that the claimant failed to show an arguable case of error by the General Division.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Employment Insurance Regulations, sections 77.995 and 77.999(2), were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The claimant argued that the General Division should have considered an exception to the law regarding the 20-week extension of benefits under Pilot Project No. 24.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the claimant, denying her permission to appeal.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also face challenges in obtaining permission to appeal if they cannot demonstrate an arguable case of error by the General Division.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that mattered in the decision.