Commission Can Reconsider EI Sickness Benefits Under 72-Month Limit

OUTCOME: Dismissed

[TRANSLATION] Citation: NL  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  287 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [COUNSEL] under appeal: General Division decision dated November 24, 2025 (GE-25-2928) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In person Hearing date: March 5, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: April 10, 2026 File number: AD-25-811 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Respondent (Commission) could use the 72‑month time limit set out in section 52(5) of the [NAME]  ( EI  Act) to reconsider the claim for benefits of the Appellant (Claimant). The Commission used its discretion to reconsider judicially. Overview [ 3 ] The Claimant applied for sickness benefits on June 15, 2021. An initial benefit period for Employment Insurance ( EI ) sickness benefits was established as of May 16, 2021. [ 4 ] The [APPELLANT] then contacted the Commission to say that, on August 25, 2021, he had received a wage‑loss indemnity from the [NAME] [NAME]. The amount was $595 per week, and it was given to him for the period from May 23, 2021, to September 18, 2021. He said that he had gradually gone back to work as of September 19, 2021. [ 5 ] On October 21, 2025, the Commission told the Claimant that the earnings received would be allocated to his benefit period from May 24, 2021, to August 14, 2021. This decision resulted in a benefit overpayment. [ 6 ] The [APPELLANT] disagreed with the Commission’s reconsideration decision, and he appealed to the General Division. He argued that the [NAME] initially denied his claim for compensation for lost wages. He later received payment in August 2021 for the period from May 21, 2021, to August 14, 2021. He also said that he could not be asked to pay back the overpayment because the 36‑month time limit under the law had expired. [ 7 ] The General Division found that the Claimant had retroactively received $595 per week in earnings from the [NAME] for the period from May 23, 2021, to September 18, 2021. The earnings had to be allocated. [ 8 ] The General Division found that the Commission could use the 72‑month time limit to reconsider the claim for benefits, and that it had used its discretion judicially. [ 9 ] The Claimant was given permission to appeal the decision of the Tribunal’s General Division to the Appeal Division. [ 10 ] The [APPELLANT] argues that the Commission could not benefit from the 72‑month time limit because he didn’t make a false or misleading statement. The [NAME] initially refused to pay him his wages, and then it paid him retroactively on August 25, 2021. The [APPELLANT] says that the Commission didn’t provide the call log showing that he had contacted the Commission many times before November 15, 2021, to pay the overpayment. [ 11 ] The [APPELLANT] appeal is dismissed. Issues [ 12 ] Did the General Division make an error when it found that the Commission could use the 72‑month time limit set out in section 52(5) of the EI  Act? [ 13 ] Did the General Division use its discretion judicially when it reconsidered the [APPELLANT] claim? Analysis [ 14 ] The [APPELLANT] argues that the Commission could not use the 72‑month time limit because he didn’t make a false or misleading statement. [ 15 ] The [APPELLANT] argues that the [NAME] initially refused to pay him his wages, and then it paid him retroactively on August 25, 2021. The Commission didn’t provide a call log showing that he had contacted the Commission many times before November 15, 2021, to pay the overpayment. [ 16 ] The [APPELLANT] argues that the Commission could not reconsider his claim, since it was outside the 36‑month time limit set out in section 52 of the EI  Act. [ 17 ] The Federal Court of Appeal has established that, to use the 72‑month extension under section 52(5) of the EI  Act, the Commission doesn’t have to establish that the claimant in question knowingly made false or misleading statements. Rather, the Commission has to show that it could reasonably find that a false or misleading statement had been made in connection with a claim for benefits. Footnote 1 [ 18 ] So, when reconsidering, the Commission didn’t have to show that the [APPELLANT] knowingly made a false or misleading statement. As the General Division noted, the Commission had to reasonably find that a false or misleading statement had been made, for it to use the 72‑month time limit. Footnote 2 [ 19 ] Could the Commission, under the circumstances of this case, reasonably find that there had been a false or misleading statement or representation in connection with the [APPELLANT] claim for benefits, for it to use a 72‑month time limit? [ 20 ] When completing his claimant reports for the period from May 23, 2021, to August 7, 2021, the [APPELLANT] answered [translation] “No” to the following question: [translation] “Have you received or will you receive a wage‑loss indemnity...?” [Emphasis added] [ 21 ] As of August 8, 2021, the [APPELLANT] started receiving $595 per week in wage‑loss indemnity. He said this in his claimant reports. Footnote 3 [ 22 ] The [APPELLANT] says that he contacted the Commission as early as August 25, 2021, and repeatedly before November 15, 2021, to say that he had received a wage‑loss indemnity for the period from May 23, 2021, to August 7, 2021. No record of his calls was kept in his file. On November 15, 2021, he contacted the Commission again, and he said that, as of August 25, 2021, he had received $595 per week for the period from May 23, 2021, to August 7, 2021. [ 23 ] The [APPELLANT] argues that he didn’t know he would receive a wage‑loss indemnity when he completed his reports for the period from May 23, 2021, to August 7, 2021. He immediately told the Commission, and he didn’t make any false or misleading statements. [ 24 ] I understand the [APPELLANT] position. But there continues to be a clear contradiction between his statements. In his statements for the period from May 23, 2021, to August 7, 2021, he said that he would not receive a wage‑loss indemnity. But in his statement to the Commission, he said that he had received a wage‑loss indemnity retroactively. [ 25 ] Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the General Division didn’t make an error when it found the following: The Commission could reasonably find that there had been a false or misleading statement or representation in connection with the [APPELLANT] claim for benefits, for it to use a 72‑month time limit to reconsider the claim. [ 26 ] As a result, the Commission acted within the time limits set out in the law to recover the overpaid benefits that the [APPELLANT] had received. [ 27 ] I recognize that the time limit to reconsider the [APPELLANT] claim was very long, especially since I believe him when he said that he had contacted the Commission as early as August 25, 2021. It appears that the [COMPANY] intervening in the file regarding a wage‑loss indemnity being allocated was without merit. It would have caused more delays. [ 28 ] I find that the EI  Act didn’t impose any specific time limit on the Commission to conduct or complete its investigation, other than the 72‑month time limit set out in the law. While this time limit might seem too long for the Claimant, I don’t have the power to change the law. [NAME] can do so. [ 29 ] I am also of the view that the General Division didn’t make an error when it found that the Commission had used its discretion judicially. [ 30 ] When he applied for sickness benefits, the Commission could reasonably rely on the [APPELLANT] statements that he would not receive a wage‑loss indemnity. The employer’s opposition delayed settling and paying the wage indemnity. But the delay doesn’t change the fact that the Claimant received benefits he should not have received. [ 31 ] Nothing suggests that the Commission considered any irrelevant information or acted in bad faith or in a discriminatory manner. The Commission also acted for a proper purpose in reconsidering whether the Claimant was entitled to benefits. [ 32 ] Regarding the Commission’s refusal to write off the Claimant’s debt, only the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the issue of a write‑off. Footnote 4 [ 33 ] For these reasons, I have no choice but to dismiss the [APPELLANT] appeal. Conclusion [ 34 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 35 ] The Commission could use the 72‑month time limit under section 52(5) of the EI  Act to reconsider the Claimant’s claim for benefits. It used its discretion to reconsider judicially. Footnotes Footnote 1 See Federal Court of Appeal decisions in Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2002  FCA  157 (A-140-01); Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2002  FCA  337 (A-172-01); and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2003  FCA  372 (A-646-02). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 In support of its decision, the General Division refers to Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2003  FCA  372 (CanLII); and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , (1998) 243 N.R. 203 ( FCA ). These cases establish that the Commission doesn’t have to prove that a claimant knowingly made false statements, for it to use the 72-month time limit. Rather, it has to be reasonably satisfied that a false or misleading statement or representation was made in connection with a claim for benefits. See footnote 11. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD3-62 and GD3-63. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 56 of the Employment Insurance Regulations and section 112.1 of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 4 referrer