Claimant Ordered to Repay $2,000 Overpayment of EI Emergency Benefit

Citation: AB  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  68 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Employment Insurance Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: Canada Employment Insurance Commission reconsideration decision (452884) dated December 10, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: January 13, 2026 Hearing participant: Appellant Decision date: January 14, 2026 File number: GE-25-3491 On this page Decision Overview Matters I have to consider first Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant has to pay back $2,000.00 of the Employment Insurance Emergency Response Benefit ( [NAME] ) advance payment he received. Overview [ 3 ] The [NAME] is a new benefit that was created at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Footnote 1 The amount of the [NAME] was $500.00 per week. Footnote 2 But the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) gave claimants an advance payment of four-weeks of the [NAME] ($2,000.00) when they first applied. [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for the [NAME] on April 23, 2020. After this, the Commission paid the Appellant the $2,000.00 advance payment. The Commission also paid the Appellant four-weeks of the [NAME] . In total, the Appellant received $4,000.00 in the [NAME] . [ 5 ] I have to decide whether the Appellant has to pay back $2,000.00 of the [NAME] advance payment he received. [ 6 ] The Commission says the Appellant was overpaid $2,000.00. Specifically, the Commission says the Appellant should have received only $2,000.00. [ 7 ] The Appellant says there was a breach of his privacy with Service Canada in December 2021. He further says he wanted this breach of privacy to be acknowledged and his overpayment written off. Matters I have to consider first Post-hearing documents [ 8 ] The Appellant submitted post-hearing documents. These post-hearing documents have now been included in the Appeal Record and listed as GD5-1 to GD5-5). Issue [ 9 ] Does the Appellant have to pay back the [NAME] advance payment he received? Analysis Does the Appellant have to pay back the [NAME] advance payment? [ 10 ] I find the Appellant has to pay back the [NAME] advance payment he received. [ 11 ] Between March 15, 2020, and October 3, 2020, claimants could apply for the [NAME] for two-weeks at a time. Footnote 3 The law allowed the Commission to pay claimants the [NAME] before it would normally pay it. Footnote 4 [ 12 ] The Commission paid the Appellant the $2,000.00 advance payment as listed in the Appeal Record (GD3-24). This was equal to four-weeks of the [NAME] . The Commission planned to recover this advance payment by holding back four-weeks of benefits later on—usually the 13th, 14th, 18th, and 19th weeks of benefits claimed. [ 13 ] The Commission says that, because of the advance payment, the Appellant received a total of 8-weeks of benefits but should have received only four-weeks of benefits. Specifically, the Commission wasn’t able to recover $2,000.00 of the advance payment because the Appellant returned to work full-time on May 21, 2020. As a result, the Appellant was overpaid $2,000.00 in the [NAME] . [ 14 ] The Appellant agrees he was paid the $2,000 advance payment and four-weeks of the [NAME] . He says he stopped claiming the [NAME] after four-weeks and wasn’t eligible for any more weeks of the [NAME] . [ 15 ] I find the Appellant was paid a total of 8-weeks of the [NAME] , but he should have received only four-weeks of benefits. As mentioned, this is because the Appellant returned to work full-time on May 21, 2020, and the Commission wasn’t able to recoup the advance payment of $2,000.00 after the 12th week of [NAME] benefits (GD3-24). [ 16 ] Since the Appellant received four more weeks of the [NAME] than he should have received, he was overpaid $2,000.00. [ 17 ] The law says that, if someone received more of the [NAME] than they were eligible for, they have to pay back the overpayment. Footnote 5 So, the Appellant has to pay back this amount. On this matter, I must apply the law to the evidence before me. In other words, I cannot ignore or re-fashion the law even for sympathetic reasons. Footnote 6 The Appellant’s overpayment [ 18 ] The Appellant is asking for a write-off of his overpayment. Specifically, the Appellant testified that he wanted his breach of privacy with Service Canada acknowledged and his overpayment written off (GD5-1 to GD5-5). However, I have no authority to write-off the Appellant’s overpayment. Footnote 7 But the Commission can decide to write-off an overpayment in certain situations—for example, if paying it back would cause the Appellant undue hardship. [ 19 ] So, the Appellant can ask the Commission to write-off his overpayment. Or the Appellant can contact the Canada Revenue Agency ( [NAME] ) to discuss fair payment arrangements. [ 20 ] I realize the Appellant testified that the breach of privacy from Service Canada has been a “great struggle” for him. I genuinely sympathize with the Appellant on this matter. Still, I have no authority to write-off the Appellant’s overpayment. Furthermore, I agree with the Commission that the privacy breach was unrelated to the establishment of the overpayment and the Commission’s application of the law regarding the [NAME] advance overpayment. [ 21 ] I also recognize the Appellant asked if I could advise him on what steps he could take to have the privacy breach acknowledged. However, I have no authority to advise the Appellant on this matter. As mentioned, the Appellant could ask the Commission to write-off his overpayment and perhaps explain the background circumstances to them. The Appellant’s former employer and his severance monies [ 22 ] I further realize the Appellant explained that in 2017 he lost his job, and his employer wouldn’t place his severance payment into his certified Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) account. He further explained that the employer’s refusal on this matter resulted in a loss of thousands of dollars for himself and his family. I sympathize with the Appellant. Nevertheless, this matter was unrelated to the issue of whether the Appellant has to pay back his [NAME] advance payment. In short, the only issue before me was whether the Appellant has to pay back the $2,000.00 advance payment of the [NAME] . Conclusion [ 23 ] The Appellant has to pay back $2,000.00 of the [NAME] advance payment he received. [ 24 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 Part VIII.4 of the Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act) sets out the rules that apply to the Employment Insurance Emergency Response Benefit. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 153.10(1) of the Act. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See sections 153.7(1) and 153.8 of the EI Act. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 153.7(1.1) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See sections 43 and 153.1301 of the EI Act. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  301. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2005  FCA  440; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2002  FCA  355; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , A-874-97). Return to footnote 7 referrer