Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal Late EI Application

Citation: EB  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  172 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated January 27, 2026 (GE-26-192) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: March 9, 2026 File number: AD-26-138 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. E. B.’s appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] E. B. is the Claimant. She stopped working on April 30, 2024. Several months later, she applied for Employment Insurance benefits on November 8, 2024. Footnote 1 [ 3 ] On June 3, 2025, the Claimant asked the Commission to antedate her application to her last day of work. Footnote 2 [ 4 ] On November 24, 2025, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) refused to antedate her application to the earlier date because she hadn’t shown she had good cause for the entire period of delay. Footnote 3 [ 5 ] The General Division found that the Claimant’s appeal was late and that she didn’t have a reasonable explanation. Footnote 4 [ 6 ] The Claimant is now asking for permission to appeal. She disagrees with the General Division’s decision and it’s unfair she can’t get benefits. Footnote 5 [ 7 ] 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 6 Issue [ 8 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made any reviewable errors? Analysis [ 9 ] I can consider four types of errors, and they include a failure to follow a fair process, jurisdictional, legal, and important factual errors. Footnote 7 I will refer to these as “reviewable errors.” [ 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 her appeal a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 8 [ 11 ] The Claimant set out her reasons for appealing and I have considered them. I’ve also reviewed the General Division decision and the file documents before making my decision. [ 12 ] The Claimant hasn’t pointed out what type of errors the General Division made, so I will broadly consider whether the General Division made any reviewable errors. I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal The Claimant’s arguments to the Appeal Division [ 13 ] The Claimant disagrees with the General Division decision. She says that she has worked the hours, paid taxes and deserves to get benefits. It is unfair that she can’t get benefits. She is a hard-working professional, and feels she is being penalized. Footnote 9 There is no arguable case that the General Division made any reviewable errors [ 14 ] An appeal of a decision must be brought to the General Division 30 days after the day on which it is communicated to the person. Footnote 10 [ 15 ] A person who files a notice of appeal after the deadline must explain why they are late. They must file the explanation with the Tribunal. Footnote 11 The Tribunal gives more time to appeal if the person has a reasonable explanation for why they are late. Footnote 12 [ 16 ] The General Division found the Commission had communicated its reconsideration decision (i.e., the refusal to antedate her application) to the Claimant on November 24, 2025. Footnote 13 The communication date was undisputed as this was the date the Claimant wrote she got the reconsideration decision. Footnote 14 [ 17 ] The General Division noted that the reconsideration decision and her appeal rights had been verbally communicated to her at an earlier date. Footnote 15 [ 18 ] The General Division found that she had filed her appeal to the General Division on January 16, 2026. Footnote 16 It decided that her appeal was more than 30 days late. Footnote 17 It then considered whether she had a reasonable explanation for the late appeal. Footnote 18 [ 19 ] The General Division concluded that the Claimant hadn’t provided a reasonable explanation, so her appeal could not proceed. Footnote 19 It considered her reason for filing it late, namely that she forgot about the deadline because of a vacation and Christmas, so she didn’t have a moment to sit down and work through it. Footnote 20 It determined that forgetting about a deadline didn’t excuse a late appeal. Footnote 21 [ 20 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division made any reviewable errors. Footnote 22 It only decided the issues it had to decide. It correctly stated the law in its decision. Footnote 23 Its key findings about the communication date of the Commission’s reconsideration decision and late appeal were consistent with the evidence. It considered the Claimant’s reasons for filing the appeal late and explained why it wasn’t a reasonable explanation. I also see no indication that it didn’t follow a fair process in some way. [ 21 ] I acknowledge the Claimant’s arguments that the General Division’s decision was unfair, that she has worked the hours, paid taxes and deserved to get benefits. The Appeal Division has a limited mandate. I can’t intervene in the General Division’s decision based on a disagreement with the outcome and unfairness in general because that isn’t a reviewable error. I also can’t reweigh the evidence in order to reach a different outcome. Footnote 24 [ 22 ] There are no other reasons for giving the Claimant permission to appeal. I’m satisfied that the General Division didn’t misinterpret or fail to consider any relevant evidence. Footnote 25 Conclusion [ 23 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. It has no reasonable chance of success. Footnotes Footnote 1 See page GD3-12 Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See pages GD3-15 to GD3-16. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See pages GD3-18 and GD3-26 and section 10(4) of the Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act). Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See pages AD1A-1 to AD1A-5. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See pages AD1-1 to AD1-8. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [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 8 referrer Footnote 9 This is a summary of the Claimant’s arguments set out at page AD1-5. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See section 52(1)(a) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See section 27(1) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure ( SST Rules) and section 52(2) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See section 17(2) of the  SST  Rules. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See paragraph 11 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See page GD2-8. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See paragraph 19 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See paragraph 11 of the General Division decision and section 19(2) of the  SST  Rules. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See paragraphs 9–12 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See section 27(2) of the  SST  Rules. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See paragraphs 13, 16–18, 21 and 23 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See paragraph 14 of the General Division decision and page GD2-12. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See paragraph 17 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See paragraphs 4 and 7–8 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General),  2018  FCA  118 at paragraph 11. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  165 at paragraph 10, which recommends doing such a review. Return to footnote 25 referrer