Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal Family Caregiver Benefits

Citation: AT v Canada [NAME] Commission , 2026  SST  116 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated January 22, 2026 (GE-25-3616) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: February 20, 2026 File number: AD-26-84 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. [NAME].’s appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] [NAME]. is the Claimant. She applied for [NAME] Family Caregiver Benefits and asked for 6 weeks of benefits while she was caring for her mother. [ 3 ] The Canada [NAME] Commission (Commission) refused to pay the Claimant Family Caregiver Benefits because she didn’t submit a medical certificate, signed by a doctor or nurse practitioner, confirming that her mother was critically ill or injured, had a significant change to the baseline state of health and required care and support. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] The General Division concluded the same and dismissed her appeal. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The Claimant is now asking for permission to appeal and argues that the General Division didn’t consider all of the evidence before it. Footnote 3 [ 6 ] I am denying permission to appeal because the Claimant’s arguments don’t show that she has an arguable case upon which the appeal might succeed. So, I can’t give her permission to appeal. Footnote 4 Issue [ 7 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division based its decision on any important factual errors and overlooked important evidence? Analysis [ 8 ] The law says that I can consider four types of errors, and they include, a failure to follow a fair process, jurisdictional, legal, and important factual errors. Footnote 5 [ 9 ] 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 her appeal a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 6 [ 10 ] I’ve looked at the General Division’s decision, the Claimant’s application to Appeal Division, and all of the file documents before making my decision. I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal The Claimant’s arguments to the Appeal Division [ 11 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division made factual errors because it didn’t consider all of the evidence. She says the medical evidence at pages GD2A-16 and GD2A-18 proves that her mother’s life was at risk and there was a significant chance in her baseline state of health. How to get [NAME] family caregiver benefits [ 12 ] The [NAME] Act ( EI Act) says that Family Caregiver Benefits are payable to a family member of a “critically ill adult” if a medical doctor or nurse practitioner has issued a certificate that says the adult is a critically ill adult and requires the care or support of one or more of their family members. Footnote 7 [ 13 ] The [NAME] ( EI Regulations) says that a critically ill adult is defined as a person who is 18 years of age or older whose baseline state of health has significantly changed and whose life is at risk as a result of an illness or injury. Footnote 8 To meet that definition, the patient’s life must be at risk as a result of an illness or injury. Footnote 9 There is no arguable case that the General Division made any important factual errors and overlooked any important evidence [ 14 ] The General Division makes an important factual error if it bases its decision on a factual finding it made by ignoring or misunderstanding the evidence. Footnote 10 Put another way, the evidence goes squarely against or doesn’t support a factual finding the General Division made. [ 15 ] The General Division considered the totality of the medical evidence submitted but found that it didn’t show that the Claimant’s mother’s life was at risk and that there was a change in her baseline state of health. It concluded that she couldn’t get Family Caregiver Benefits in the absence of a medical certificate that confirmed her mother was critically ill. Footnote 11 [ 16 ] The Claimant points to the medical evidence at pages GD2A-16 and GD2A-18. These documents appeared to be translated by “google lens,” but they don’t say that her mother was critically ill (i.e. that her life was at risk and a significant change in her baseline health). None of the other medical evidence in the record says this either. [ 17 ] I see no arguable case that the General Division based its decision on any important factual errors and overlooked any important evidence when it decided that the Claimant couldn’t get Family Caregiver Benefits because she hadn’t met the criteria set out in the law. Footnote 12 Its key findings about this are consistent with the evidence. And I didn’t find any evidence that the General Division might have ignored or misinterpreted. [ 18 ] The Federal Court has held that the requirements of the  EI  Act do not allow any discrepancy and provide the Tribunal with no discretion in its application. Footnote 13 There are no other reasons for giving the Claimant permission to appeal [ 19 ] I see no other reasons for giving the Claimant permission to appeal. Footnote 14 The General Division also correctly referred to and applied the law in its decision. Footnote 15 Conclusion [ 20 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. It has no reasonable chance of success. Footnotes Footnote 1 See Commission’s initial and reconsideration at pages GD3-23 to GD3-24 and GD3-36. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See General Division decision at pages AD1A-1 to AD1A-7. Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 See Application to the Appeal Division at pages AD1-1 to AD1-14. Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 See section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 [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 6 Footnote 7 See section 23.3(1) of the [NAME] Act ( EI Act). Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 See section 1(7) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 8 Footnote 9 [NAME] v Canada [NAME] Commission , 2022 SST  103 at paragraphs 14–15. Return to footnote 9 Footnote 10 I have described this ground of appeal using plain language. Section 58(1)(c) of the  DESD  Act includes when the General Division has “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”. Return to footnote 10 Footnote 11 See paragraphs 19–22 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 11 Footnote 12 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 12 Footnote 13 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2001 FCA  304, and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2004 FCA  90. Return to footnote 13 Footnote 14 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 14 Footnote 15 See paragraphs 16-18 and 20 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 15