Claimant Granted More Time but Denied Permission to Appeal Employment Insurance Benefits

Citation: HC  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  [NAME]  201 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Extension of Time Decision and Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Representative: [NAME]. Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated October 6, 2025 (GE-25-2170) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: March 13, 2026 File number: AD-26-36 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am giving the Claimant more time to file her appeal. But I’m not granting her leave (permission) to appeal. The appeal will not go forward. Overview [ 2 ] The Claimant, H. C., was paid regular Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) benefits. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) was informed by the Claimant’s employer that she had received earnings during her benefit period. [ 3 ] The Commission decided that the Claimant had not declared the salary she received from her employer from December 20, 2020, to September 26, 2021. Footnote 1 The Commission decided the Claimant had to pay back the benefits she was not entitled to. It also decided that she had knowingly made false representations. The Commission imposed a penalty of $1,347 to the Claimant for having made five false representations. The Commission also issued a notice of a serious violation. [ 4 ] The Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider its decision. Footnote 2 She stated that she was going to file a police report because she said she had been a victim of fraud. She said that to her knowledge she had not made the [NAME] reports during the period in question. She believed [NAME] may be responsible. [ 5 ] On November 7, 2024, the Commission maintained its decision on the issue of the Claimant having to pay back the benefits she received that she wasn’t entitled to (earnings). Footnote 3 It also maintained its decision on the serious violation. But it lowered the penalty to $1,077. [ 6 ] The Claimant then appealed to the General Division on July 23, 2025. Footnote 4 Her appeal to the General Division was late. But the General Division decided she had a reasonable explanation for being late. Footnote 5 The General Division decided that it was reasonable the Claimant filed a late appeal, because she had been directed to file a motion with the Federal Court of Canada and tried to find a lawyer. [ 7 ] On October 6, 2025, the General Division allowed her appeal in part. Footnote 6 The General Division found that the Commission acted properly when it decided to reconsider the Claimant’s application for benefits. And that the Commission had correctly allocated her earnings. It decided the Claimant had to pay back the benefits she was overpaid in the amount of $11,674. But the General Division decided that the Claimant had not knowingly made misrepresentations. So it decided to remove the penalty and serious violation from her file. [ 8 ] The Claimant filed her application for leave (permission) to appeal on January 13, 2026. The application appears to be late. Issues [ 9 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Was the application to the Appeal Division late? b) Should I give the Claimant more time for filing the application? c) If I extend the time for filing the application, does the Claimant’s appeal have a reasonable chance of success? Analysis The application was late [ 10 ] In her application to the Appeal Division, the Claimant stated she didn’t remember when she received the General Division’s decision. Footnote 7 Even so, the Appeal Division gave the Claimant another opportunity to say when she had received the General Division decision. Footnote 8 She responded that she had received it on October 15, 2025. Footnote 9 [ 11 ] The law says that the Claimant had 30 days after the day on which she received the written decision to file her application for leave to appeal to the Appeal Division. Footnote 10 That means the Claimant had until November 14, 2025, to file her application for leave to appeal to the Appeal Division. [ 12 ] The Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure state that a document is considered filed on the date the Tribunal receives it. Footnote 11 So the Claimant filed her application for leave to appeal on January 13, 2026, because that is when the Appeal Division received it. [ 13 ] The Claimant’s Application for leave to appeal was 60 days late . I’m giving the Claimant more time for filing her application for leave to appeal [ 14 ] I can give a Claimant more time if they have provided a reasonable explanation for why the application was late. Footnote 12 I find that the Claimant has given a reasonable explanation for why her application was late. [ 15 ] She told the Appeal Division that she tried to see if the Canada Revenue Agency ( CRA ) would cancel her debt but was told to go back to the Social Security Tribunal. Footnote 13 [ 16 ] I find this explanation reasonable. The Claimant thought she could obtain a write-off for the amount owed. But when she could not, she realised her only recourse was to appeal to the Appeal Division. [ 17 ] I am giving the Claimant more time to file her application for leave to appeal. I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal The legal test for granting permission to appeal [ 18 ] Permission to appeal is required for the Appeal Division to hear an appeal on the merits. Footnote 14 [ 19 ] I can give the Claimant permission to appeal if the appeal has a reasonable chance of success, based on one of the grounds of appeal set out in the law. A reasonable chance of success means having some arguable ground upon which the appeal might succeed. Footnote 15 [ 20 ] So the Claimant must show an arguable case that the General Division did one of the following: breached the principles of procedural fairness acted beyond its powers or refused to exercise its powers made an error in law based its decision on an important error of fact. Footnote 16 [ 21 ] I must refuse the application for permission to appeal if the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. Footnote 17 [ 22 ] I have reviewed the record and the General Division’s decision and listened to the recording of the General Division’s hearing before making my decision. [ 23 ] In her application to the Appeal Division, the Claimant checked the box that said the General Division made an error of procedural fairness. Footnote 18 But she didn’t say how. [ 24 ] So the Appeal Division sent her a letter requesting additional information. The Appeal Division asked the Claimant to explain in detail why she is appealing the General Division decision. Footnote 19 The Claimant responded and provided some additional information. Footnote 20 She said the General Division decision was made without all the facts. She said she had to go and get a police report, but she wasn’t well at the time. She said she went to get the police report and sent it in but was told it was too late. There is no arguable case the General Division didn’t respect procedural fairness [ 25 ] The Claimant says that it wasn’t fair that she was told to get a police report but then when she did get it, was told it was too late. [ 26 ] When looking at whether there is an arguable case the General Division breached the principles of procedural fairness, I must look at whether the Claimant had a fair opportunity to be heard, and whether the General Division was independent and impartial in its decision-making. [ 27 ] I find there is no arguable case that the General Division breached the principles of procedural fairness by rendering its decision before the Claimant provided the police report reference number. I note that the Claimant didn’t ask the General Division for additional time to submit a police report. [ 28 ] At the hearing before the General Division, the Claimant had expressed wanting to provide additional documents after the hearing. She wanted to prove she didn’t have access to the joint bank account she had with [NAME], in which the [NAME] were deposited, after November 2020. She said that she had opened her own personal bank account at that time. She also wanted to provide an affidavit signed by [NAME]. So the General Division gave her extra time to do so. Footnote 21 [ 29 ] The General Division gave the Claimant an additional week after the hearing to provide any evidence she wished to submit. She gave the Claimant until September 12, 2025, to provide additional documents. Footnote 22 It was open to the Claimant to provide any documents she wished to within that time frame. [ 30 ] Before the General Division made its decision, but after the deadline of September 12, 2025, had passed, the Claimant emailed the Tribunal saying she had filed a police report and would be providing the reference number for it. Footnote 23 The General Division made its decision on October 6, 2025. After the decision was made, the Claimant emailed the General Division again on October 14, 2025. Footnote 24 In this email, the Claimant provided a reference number for the police report she says she filed. She did not attach a copy of the police report. [ 31 ] The Claimant alleges she should have been allowed to file her police report number before the General Division made its decision. But the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure state that the Tribunal must not consider any evidence filed after a filing deadline unless the Tribunal gives it permission to do so. Footnote 25 The Claimant didn’t ask for more time to submit a police report. [ 32 ] In addition, the Claimant had ample time before the General Division hearing and within the extra week granted to provide evidence of a police report. The Claimant has said since 2024 that she was going to file a police report against [NAME]. The General Division pointed out in its decision that the Claimant had told the Commission on July 31, 2024, that [NAME] was presumably responsible for filing the inaccurate [NAME] reports and that she was a victim of fraud. Footnote 26 The Claimant had said at that time that she would be filing a police report to initiate a criminal investigation into the matter. Footnote 27 Also, the Claimant knew as early on as September 29, 2023, that the Commission was looking into why she hadn’t disclosed her earnings from her employer during her benefit period. Footnote 28 [ 33 ] There is no arguable case the General Division breached its duty of providing a fair process by rendering its decision before the Claimant provided the police report reference number. [ 34 ] In fact, even though the Claimant submitted an email declaring she had filed a police report on September 30, 2025, after the deadline of September 12, 2025, the General Division still considered that email in its decision. Footnote 29   The General Division’s decision shows that it did consider that the Claimant had filed a police report against [NAME], whom she holds responsible for filing the [NAME] reports. [ 35 ] The General Division took this email into account in her decision and wrote that the Claimant had proceeded to author a police report. In addition, it found the Claimant credible regarding [NAME]’s behavior. Footnote 30 So I find no arguable case that the General Division failed to provide a fair process, because she allowed the Claimant extra time to submit documents and also considered the fact that the Claimant said she had filed a police report. [ 36 ] In addition, the Claimant was represented by [NAME]. at her hearing before the General Division. So she had his help in presenting her point of view. The General Division also allowed him to testify about the Claimant’s ex-husband’s behaviour. Footnote 31 [ 37 ] The General Division made sure that the Claimant and her representative knew of the Commission’s position and were able to respond. Footnote 32 The member said she would go through each issue one after the other to allow the Claimant to present her position on each issue. She also explained the legal test for each step of the way. [ 38 ] I find that there is no arguable case the General Division failed to provide a fair process, as she explained the legal tests applicable to all the issues she had to decide, she allowed the Claimant and her representative to testify, granted extra time to provide additional documents and considered the Claimant’s email in which she said she had filed a police report. There is no arguable case the General Division was anything but impartial and independent either. There is no arguable case the General Division made an error other than the one alleged by the Claimant, that could allow me to intervene [ 39 ] The Federal Court has asked the Appeal Division not to mechanistically look at an application for leave to appeal when someone is not represented. Footnote 33 Though the Claimant is represented, out of an abundance of caution, I have gone through the file to examine whether there is an arguable case any errors may have been made by the General Division. But I have found none. There is no arguable case the General Division made an error in law [ 40 ] An error in law occurs when the General Division doesn’t apply the correct legal test or fails to consider an element of a legal test in its analysis. [ 41 ] I find no arguable case the General Division made an error in law in its analysis of the Commission’s decision to reconsider the Claimant’s application for benefits. [ 42 ] The General Division stated that when deciding whether to reconsider a claim, the Commission must consider factors that go to the need for finality and accuracy. Footnote 34 The General Division stated that a claimant’s personal circumstances, such as stress or the ability to repay, aren’t relevant when deciding whether to reconsider benefits. Footnote 35 The General Division supported this assertion by citing a decision by the Appeal Division. In Canada Employment Insurance Commission   v   MA , the Appeal Division decided that the right time to consider a claimant’s personal circumstances is when deciding whether to forgive their debt. Footnote 36 [ 43 ] What is more, the General Division referred to the Commission’s policy on exercising discretion in reconsidering a claim under section 52 of the Employment Insurance Act . Footnote 37 There is no arguable case that the General Division incorrectly described the content of the policy. Indeed, the Federal Court of Appeal in [NAME] 38 addressed the Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles and specifically, its “Reconsideration policy”. In that decision, the Federal Court of Appeal said the Commission had developed a policy to ensure a consistent and fair application of section 52 of the Employment Insurance Act . And that a claim will only be reconsidered if, amongst others, benefits were paid because of a false or misleading statement. Footnote 39 The policy is not binding on the General Division but can be relied upon to examine whether the Commission acted judicially in reconsidering the Claimant’s application for benefits. [ 44 ] The General Division pointed out that a claim for benefits will be reconsidered if, among other things, benefits were paid because of a false or misleading statement. Footnote 40 The General Division decided that the Commission had followed its policy and reconsidered the Claimant’s claim because benefits were paid as a result of misleading statements. The General Division concluded that the [NAME] reports contained no indication that the Claimant had worked or earned any earnings during the weeks in which the Claimant submitted [NAME] reports. But the employer’s evidence showed the Claimant received earnings in 41 weeks in which benefits were claimed. The General Division concluded that meant benefits were paid because of false information. [ 45 ] The General Division also decided there was no evidence the Commission ignored a relevant factor or considered an irrelevant factor when it exercised its discretion to reconsider the Claimant’s claim. It didn’t find any evidence the Commission acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose or motive or that it was biased or acted in a discriminatory manner either. Footnote 41 [ 46 ] The General Division considered the Claimant’s testimony that [NAME] committed fraud and that she didn’t do anything wrong and didn’t know she was getting the [NAME]. Footnote 42 But the General Division decided that wasn’t relevant to what the Commission had to consider when deciding whether to reconsider a claim under section 52 of the Employment Insurance Act . Footnote 43 [ 47 ] The General Division determined that the Commission had acted judicially. This meant the General Division couldn’t intervene in the Commission’s decision. The General Division explained that the law says wages from employment are earnings that must be allocated against [NAME]. Footnote 44 It also explained that earnings must be allocated to the period in which the work was performed. So it confirmed the overpayment that the Claimant must pay back. [ 48 ] There is no arguable case the General Division made an error of law in reviewing the decision to impose a penalty and issue a serious violation. The General Division stated that the Commission had to prove the Claimant knowingly provided false or misleading information in order to impose a penalty. Footnote 45 The General Division decided that the Commission hadn’t exercised its discretion properly and so decided to intervene. The General Division decided to cancel the penalty, in the Claimant’s favor. [ 49 ] The General Division decided it was more likely the [NAME] were paid on the basis of claimant reports that were wrongfully submitted by a third party, without the Appellant’s knowledge , consent or authorization. It also decided the Commission hadn’t proven that it was the Appellant who submitted the false reports or that she had authorized another person to act on her behalf. So the General Division concluded that the Commission had not proven the Claimant or someone acting on her behalf knowingly made false or misleading statements by failing to report her earnings. [ 50 ] There is no arguable case the General Division made an error in law in assessing whether the violation was imposed properly. Because it decided that the penalty should be removed, it decided that the violation should also be removed. Footnote 46 That is because section 7.1(4) of the Employment Insurance Act says that a violation can be issued when one or more penalties is imposed. This issue was decided in the Claimant’s favor. There is no arguable case the General Division made an important error of fact [ 51 ] In its decision, the General Division recognised that the Claimant denied being the person who filed [NAME] reports for the period during which she is being asked to repay her benefits. Footnote 47 She said she stopped filing reports when she returned to work at the daycare and didn’t realise benefits were still being paid to her. [ 52 ] The fact remains that the Claimant didn’t dispute that she did receive the earnings reported by her employer from December 2020 to September 26, 2021. Footnote 48 The Claimant confirmed that she did work during the 41-week period in question. She also said she did not doubt the earnings reported by her employer. The General Division also noted that the Claimant was not contesting the weekly amounts allocated against her claim. The General Division made sure at the hearing that the Claimant understood that earnings received during a benefit period have to be allocated. Footnote 49 The Claimant accepted this. The Claimant stated that she didn’t dispute the allocation of earnings made by the Commission at GD3-129 and GD3-130. Footnote 50 She also recognised early on in her dealings with the Commission that she was responsible for the reports made in her account. Footnote 51 [ 53 ] The General Division weighed the evidence and found that on a balance of probabilities, the Claimant continued to use the joint account she had with [NAME] until she opened a new bank account on July 18, 2022. Footnote 52 The General Division also decided that meant that the [NAME] that were overpaid were received by the Claimant. [ 54 ] There is no arguable case that this finding of fact is unsupported by the evidence. The Commission informed the General Division that the Claimant used the same bank account from April 17, 2020, to July 25, 2025. And then changed her direct deposit account to a different account effective July 26, 2025. Footnote 53 The Claimant also said she couldn’t provide any evidence that she hadn’t been able to access the joint bank account the [NAME] were directly deposited into. Footnote 54 She had checked with her bank and her name was still on the joint bank account. Footnote 55 The Claimant also confirmed after the hearing that she realised she had opened her new bank account on July 18, 2022. Footnote 56 At the hearing, she had mistakenly said she opened her new bank account when she separated from [NAME] in the Fall of 2020. [ 55 ] The General Division looked at the Commission’s calculation of the overpayment at GD11-24 and found that the overpayment had been correctly calculated. The General Division concluded that the Claimant had obtained wages during her benefit period. The General Division concluded that [NAME] were paid on the claim established by the Claimant herself and deposited in her own bank account. It decided that the [NAME] reports didn’t disclose any work during that period. So the General Division confirmed the allocation of earnings calculated by the Commission in the amount of $11,674. [ 56 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division omitted or ignored important evidence. The Appeal Division cannot reweigh the evidence. Footnote 57 It was open to the General Division to find that the Claimant had received the [NAME] earnings in an account that she still was responsible for, despite her saying she had never had any knowledge of any [NAME] going into that account. The Appeal Division cannot simply substitute its view of the evidence to that of the General Division’s. Footnote 58 There is no arguable case that the General Division based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. Footnote 59 There is no arguable case the General Division made an error of jurisdiction [ 57 ] The General Division had to review whether the Claimant had indeed received earnings while she also received benefits. It also had to decide whether the Commission exercised its discretion judicially when deciding to reconsider the Claimant’s application for benefits, impose a penalty and issue a serious violation. [ 58 ] There is no arguable case the General Division decided something it shouldn’t have and it appears to have dealt with all the issues brought forward by the Claimant. [ 59 ] So there is no arguable case the General Division made an error of jurisdiction. Conclusion [ 60 ] I have given the Claimant an extension of time to apply to the Appeal Division. But I’m not granting her permission to appeal. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the Notice of Decision at GD3-139. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See the Reconsideration request at GD3-144. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See the Notice of Decision at GD3-153. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See the Notice of Appeal at GD2-1. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See the General Division’s decision to give the Claimant more time to file her appeal at GD7-1. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-2. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See the Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division at AD1-2. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See the Appeal Division’s request for more information sent on January 16, 2026. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See the Claimant’s email at AD1E-1. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See section 57(1)(a) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See section 19(2) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure . Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 It says this in section 27(2) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See the Claimant’s email dated February 12, 2026, at AD1E-1. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See section 56(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  115 at paragraph 12. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See the Claimant’s Application to the Appeal Division at AD1-3. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See the Request for additional information sent on January 16, 2026. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See the Claimant’s email dated February 12, 2026, at AD1D-1. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-21 at paragraph 103. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 Listen to the Recording of the General Division’s hearing at 01:09:50. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See the email sent on September 30, 2025, at GD13-1. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See the Claimant’s email on October 14, 2025. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See section 42(1) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure . Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-18 at paragraph 96. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-18 at paragraph 96. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See the Commission’s letter to the Claimant about undisclosed earnings at GD3-129. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-21 at paragraph 105. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-23 at paragraph 114. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 Listen to the Recording of the General Division’s hearing at 00:20:50. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 Listen to the Recording of the General Division’s hearing at 00:16:10. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See the Federal Court’s decision [NAME]   v   Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  615 at paragraph 10. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-10 at paragraph 55. The General Division cited the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in [NAME]  v  Attorney General (Canada) , 2024  FCA  48. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-10 at paragraph 56. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See the Appeal Division’s decision Canada Employment Insurance Commission   v   MA , 2022  [NAME]  1018 at paragraph 25. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-11 at paragraph 58. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision [NAME]   v   Canada (Attorney General), 2024  FCA  46 at paragraphs 18 to 20. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in [NAME]   v   Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FCA  46 at paragraph 20. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-11 at paragraph 59. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-12 at paragraphs 63 and 64. The Federal Court of Appeal defined what it means to exercise a discretionary power judicially in Attorney General of Canada   v   [NAME] , A-694-94. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-10 at paragraph 53. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-10 at paragraph 54. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-4 at paragraphs 18 to 20. The General Division referred to sections 35 and 36 of the Employment Insurance Regulations . Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-12 at paragraph 68. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-26 at paragraph 128. Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-3 at paragraph 13. Return to footnote 47 referrer Footnote 48 Listen to the Recording of the General Division’s hearing at 00:22:00. Return to footnote 48 referrer Footnote 49 Listen to the Recording of the General Division’s hearing at 00:23:00. Return to footnote 49 referrer Footnote 50 Listen to the Recording of the General Division’s hearing at 00:24:30. Return to footnote 50 referrer Footnote 51 See the notes about a telephone conversation at GD3-133. Return to footnote 51 referrer Footnote 52 See the General Division’s decision at paragraph 141 and 142. Return to footnote 52 referrer Footnote 53 See the Commission’s response to the Investigation and Report at GD11-1 and following. Return to footnote 53 referrer Footnote 54 See the Claimant’s email sent on September 11, 2025, at GD-12. Return to footnote 54 referrer Footnote 55 See the Claimant’s email sent on September 11, 2025, at GD-12. Return to footnote 55 referrer Footnote 56 See the Claimant’s email sent on September 11, 2025, at GD-12. Return to footnote 56 referrer Footnote 57 See the Federal Court’s decision [NAME]   v   Canada (Attorney General) , 2025  FC  328 at paragraph 20. Return to footnote 57 referrer Footnote 58 See the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision [NAME]   v   Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  157. Return to footnote 58 referrer Footnote 59 See section 58(1)(c) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 59 referrer