Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal Overpayment Recovery of Employment Insurance Advance

Citation: AB  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  [NAME]  67 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated January 14, 2026 (GE-25-3491) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 30, 2026 File number: AD-26-59 On this page Decision Overview Issues I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am refusing leave (permission) to appeal. The appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] A. B. is the Applicant. He made a claim for the Employment Insurance Emergency Response Benefit ( ERB ), so I will call him the Claimant. The Respondent is the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, which I will call the Commission. [ 3 ] Under the ERB program, claimants were entitled to a $500.00 weekly benefit if they met the requirements. To get benefits to claimants quickly, the Commission immediately prepaid or advanced $2000.00 to claimants. It did so with the expectation that it would recover the $2000.00 advance later in the claim by withholding the weekly benefit for certain weeks. [ 4 ] The Claimant received this $2000.00 advance in the Spring of 2020 and then claimed four weeks of benefits before returning to work full-time on May 21, 2020. This meant that the Commission did not have a chance to recover the advance. Between the advance and the claimed weeks, the Claimant received $4000.00. But he was only entitled to $2000.00 for the four weeks claimed. [ 5 ] The Commission sent the Claimant a Notice of Debt on November 20, 2021, to recover the advance from the Claimant. The Claimant disagreed. He expressed his intention to reconsider on December 10, 2021, and filed a reconsideration request that was received on January 10, 2022. The Commission did not make a decision on the reconsideration until December 10, 2025. It maintained its earlier decision. [ 6 ] The Claimant appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal, but his appeal was dismissed. He is now asking the Appeal Division for permission to appeal. [ 7 ] I am refusing permission to appeal. The Claimant has not raised an arguable case that the General Division made an error of procedural fairness or of jurisdiction. Issues [ 8 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error of procedural unfairness? [ 9 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error of jurisdiction by failing to consider the Commission’s information breach or the write-off issue? I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal General principles [ 10 ] For the Claimant’s application for leave to appeal to succeed, his reasons for appealing would have to fit within the “grounds of appeal.” The grounds of appeal identify the kinds of errors that I can consider. [ 11 ] I may consider only the following errors: a) The General Division hearing process was not fair in some way. b) The General Division did not decide an issue that it should have decided. Or, it decided something it did not have the power to decide (error of jurisdiction). c) The General Division based its decision on an important error of fact. d) The General Division made an error of law when making its decision. Footnote 1 [ 12 ] To grant this application for leave and permit the appeal process to move forward, I must find that there is a reasonable chance of success on one or more grounds of appeal. Other court decisions have equated a reasonable chance of success to an “arguable case.” Footnote 2 Procedural fairness [ 13 ] The Claimant argued that the General Division made an error of fairness because the Commission’s insistence on recovering the overpayment cost him time and trouble and caused him hardship. [ 14 ] However, he has not made out an arguable case that the General Division acted in a way that was procedurally unfair. [ 15 ] Procedural fairness is not concerned with whether a party feels that the decision result is fair. Procedural fairness is concerned with the fairness of the appeal process. [ 16 ] Parties before the General Division have a right to certain procedural protections. These include a party’s right to be heard and to know the case against them, and the right to an unbiased decision-maker. [ 17 ] The Claimant has not argued that the General Division did not give him a fair chance to prepare for the hearing or that he did not know what was going on in the hearing. He has not suggested that he did not have a fair chance to present his case at the hearing or to respond to the Commission’s case. He has not complained that the General Division member was biased or had prejudged the matter before hearing from him. [ 18 ] When I read the decision and review the appeal record, I do not see that the General Division did anything, or failed to do anything, that resulted in an unfair process. Jurisdiction [ 19 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division failed to consider the issue of writing off his overpayment. He also states that there was a breach of his private information by the Commission, and that the General Division failed to deal with this issue as well. [ 20 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of jurisdiction by failing to deal with either of these issues. [ 21 ] An error of jurisdiction is where the General Division fails to make a decision that it is required to make, or where it makes a decision that it is not authorized to make. [ 22 ] The General Division is required to consider all the issues that are on appeal. The only kind of decision that may be appealed to the General Division is the Commission’s reconsideration decision. The General Division has jurisdiction to consider only the issues that arise from the reconsideration decision. Footnote 3 [ 23 ] The only issue identified in the reconsideration decision was the “Advance Payment.” The Commission stated that it was not changing its decision from November 20, 2021, which was the Notice of Debt in the amount of $2000.00. On December 10, 2021, the Claimant spoke with the Commission about the ERB advance payment. He said he disagreed with the overpayment, and that he would be submitting a formal reconsideration. In his formal reconsideration request, he denied receiving an advance payment on or near November 16, 2021. However, he agreed that he was paid the $2000.00 advance payment, in addition to the four weeks of benefits that he claimed, in his General Division appeal. [ 24 ] The General Division can decide only the issue that is in front of it, and only according to the law. The single issue before the General Division was the Claimant’s obligation to repay the overpayment of the $2000.00 ERB advance. Once the General Division was satisfied that the Claimant was obligated to repay the overpayment, its job was done. It had no authority to negotiate or compromise the amount of the overpayment, or to offset any other prospective actions or claims that the Claimant wanted to advance (such as a claim for the information breach). [ 25 ] Regarding the Claimant’s “write-off” request specifically, the General Division correctly noted that it has no authority to consider write-offs. That power lies with the Commission. Once the Commission makes a write-off decision, it is not permitted to reconsider its decision. Since the General Division can only hear appeals from reconsideration decisions, it is not possible to bring an appeal of a write-off decision to the General Division. [ 26 ] The Claimant has no reasonable chance of success. Conclusion [ 27 ] I am refusing permission to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 This is a plain-language version of the grounds of appeal. The full text is in section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESDA ). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)  v  [NAME] , 2007  FCA  41; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2017  FC  259. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See section 113 of the Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act). Return to footnote 3 referrer