Late appeal to General Division dismissed

Citation: Canada Employment Insurance Commission  v  GM , 2026  [NAME]  58 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated October 27, 2025 (GE-25-2624) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: January 21, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant’s representative Respondent Decision date: January 27, 2026 File number: AD-25-739 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matter Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission’s appeal is allowed. The General Division made a jurisdictional error because it was required to deal with the late appeal issue. [ 2 ] I am substituting with my own decision and giving the decision the General Division should have given. G. M.’s appeal cannot proceed because it was filed more than one year after the day on which the Commission’s decision was communicated to him. Overview [ 3 ] G. M. is the Claimant. He applied for Employment Insurance regular benefits (benefits) when he stopped working. [ 4 ] On January 12, 2022, the Commission decided that the Claimant voluntarily left his job without just cause, so he was disqualified from getting benefits. Footnote 1 The Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider its decision. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The Commission refused to reconsider its decision because more than 30 days had passed since their decision had been communicated to him. It determined that he hadn’t met the criteria set out in section 1 of the Reconsideration Request Regulations to extend the time. [ 6 ] The General Division allowed the Claimant’s appeal in part. It found the Commission hadn’t exercised their discretion in a judicial manner when it refused the extension of time. And it concluded that it didn’t have jurisdiction to deal with the voluntary leave issue since there was no reconsideration decision made by the Commission. Footnote 3 [ 7 ] The General Division didn’t deal with the late appeal issue, so I have found that it made a jurisdictional error. Preliminary matter [ 8 ] The Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure require me to make the appeal process as simple and quick as fairness allow. Footnote 4 I am also required to actively adjudicate appeals to ensure that parties participate fully in the appeal process. Footnote 5 [ 9 ] I spent some time explaining the process to the parties and what to expect during the Appeal Division hearing. The purpose of the Appeal Division hearing was to determine whether the General Division made a mistake (based on the grounds of appeal). Footnote 6 I noted how an Appeal Division hearing was different from a General Division hearing. I explained that I could only consider certain types of mistakes. And if there was a mistake, I would also have to consider how to fix that mistake. Footnote 7 [ 10 ] The Commission was the Appellant in this case. So, the Commission presented its oral arguments first, followed by the Claimant, then a brief reply by the Commission. Prior to the hearing, both parties had also been invited to provide written arguments, and the Commission did so. Footnote 8 [ 11 ] The Claimant raised an objection after hearing the Commission’s reply. He pointed out that the Commission was required to pinpoint evidence and documents but hadn’t done so. [ 12 ] The Commission did point out the specific documents and dates it was referring to in its reply (i.e., for example, GD3-21 and GD3-22). And in its written arguments, the Commission detailed the relevant provisions, documents and evidence it was relying on as well. Footnote 9 So, there was nothing new in the Commission’s oral arguments or reply that would have surprised the Claimant or that he was unprepared for. [ 13 ] Ultimately, a party is entitled to present their case in the manner they want to. It wasn’t necessary for me to rule on his objection. Issues [ 14 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Did the General Division have jurisdiction to deal with the voluntary leave issue? b) Did the General Division make a jurisdictional error when it failed to identify and deal with the late appeal issue? c) If so, how should the error or errors be fixed? Analysis [ 15 ] An error of jurisdiction means that the General Division didn’t decide an issue it had to decide or decided an issue it didn’t have the authority to decide. If the General Division made an error of jurisdiction, then I can intervene. Footnote 10 [ 16 ] Both parties made arguments about errors, but I am going to address an argument first made by the Claimant as it makes sense to address it first. The General Division didn’t make a jurisdictional error when it decided that it couldn’t deal with the voluntary leave issue [ 17 ] Section 112(1) of the  Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act) says that a person may make a request to the Commission for a reconsideration of that decision within 30 days after the date on which a decision is communicated to them or, any further time that the Commission may allow. [ 18 ] Section 113 of the  EI  Act says that a person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Commission made under section 112, including a decision in relation to further time to make a request, may appeal the decision to the Social Security Tribunal established under section 44 of the  Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( [NAME]  Act). [ 19 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division erred because it failed to deal with the voluntary leave issue and it should have done so. [ 20 ] The Commission argues that the General Division didn’t have jurisdiction to deal with the underlying issue denying benefits to the Claimant for voluntarily leaving his job. The voluntary leave decision was made by the Commission on January 12, 2022. Footnote 11 [ 21 ] The General Division decided that it didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the voluntary leave issue because it found the legal issue before it was about an extension of time to request a reconsideration. Footnote 12 Accordingly, it only dealt with the Commission’s exercise of discretion and the factors under section 1 of the Reconsideration Request Regulations . Footnote 13 [ 22 ] I find that the General Division didn’t make a jurisdictional error when it decided that it couldn’t deal with the voluntary leave issue decided by the Commission on January 12, 2022. Footnote 14 This was an initial decision made by the Commission, it wasn’t a reconsideration decision. [ 23 ] The General Division’s jurisdiction to decide an issue comes from a reconsideration decision that has been appealed to the Tribunal (s.113 of the EI Act). [ 24 ] There is no reconsideration decision (s.112 of the EI Act) made by the Commission about the voluntary leave issue. So, the General Division didn’t make a mistake by not dealing with it. The General Division made a jurisdictional error because it failed to identify and deal with the late appeal issue [ 25 ] On January 12, 2022, the Commission decided that the Claimant voluntarily left his job without just cause, so he was disqualified from getting benefits. Footnote 15 [ 26 ] The Commission received a request for reconsideration from the Claimant. The Commission decided that it was filed late and they refused to reconsider their decision. This was set out in their November 7, 2023, decision, which the Claimant appealed to the General Division. Footnote 16 [ 27 ] The General Division had to first decide when the Commission’s November 7, 2023, decision was communicated to the Claimant. [ 28 ] At paragraph 11, the General Division decided that the Commission’s November 7, 2023, decision was “received” by the Claimant on December 8, 2023. It explained that the Claimant had spoken to the Commission on December 4, 2023, because he hadn’t received the decision. The address on file was incorrect. The Commission re-sent the decision to the Claimant’s correct address. [ 29 ] I asked the parties whether the communication date of December 8, 2023, was in dispute. Both of them confirmed that the communication date was not disputed and the General Division had not made any reviewable errors in finding that the decision was “received” (in other words, communicated) on December 8, 2023. [ 30 ] The evidence shows that the Claimant filed his appeal via email with the General Division of the Tribunal on September 17, 2025. Footnote 17 [ 31 ] The Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( [NAME] Act) sets out the time limits to appeal to the General Division. [ 32 ] Section 52(1) of the [NAME] Act says: An appeal of a decision must be brought to the General Division in the prescribed form and manner and within, (a) in the case of a decision made under the Employment Insurance Act, 30 days after the day on which it is communicated to the appellant; and (b) in any other case, 90 days after the day on which the decision is communicated to the appellant. [ 33 ] Section 52(2)  of the [NAME] Act says: The General Division may allow further time within which an appeal may be brought, but in no case may an appeal be brought more than one year after the day on which the decision is communicated to the appellant. [ 34 ] The Commission argues that the General Division made a jurisdictional error because it didn’t deal with the late appeal issue and it was required to based on s.52 of the [NAME] Act, especially since it had found the decision was communicated to the Claimant on December 8, 2023. [ 35 ] The Claimant argues that he doesn’t have the same interpretation of the relevant provisions. He suggested that the provision might be referring to the Tribunal’s processes and not the Commission’s. Although, he agrees that the General Division didn’t appear to deal with the late appeal issue in its decision. [ 36 ] It’s possible that the General Division wasn’t aware that the Claimant’s appeal may have been late. I note that the late appeal issue wasn’t raised by the Commission before the General Division. [ 37 ] I find that the General Division made a jurisdictional error by not deciding an issue it had to decide, specifically, the late appeal issue. Footnote 18 It was required to apply section 52 of the [NAME] Act and decide whether the appeal to the General Division was in fact made late, and if so, how late it was. Footnote 19 The provision itself is clear, and it outlines the timelines involved for filing an appeal to the General Division of the Tribunal. Footnote 20 It isn’t necessary for me to address every argument made by the parties [ 38 ] Before the Appeal Division, the Claimant presented arguments about alleged errors, but they were mainly based on things he says the Commission did or didn’t do. He finds that the Commission’s decision was vague, and it took him a lot of time to research to find the relevant provisions. [ 39 ] The Claimant maintains that the Commission strategically and intentionally created a one-month delay when it sent the November 7, 2023, decision to the wrong address. However, the mailing delay was accounted for by the General Division when it decided it that decision was communicated to him on December 8, 2023—and this communication date remains undisputed. [ 40 ] The Appeal Division mandate is limited to deciding whether the General Division made a reviewable error based on section 58(1) of the [NAME] Act. It isn’t necessary for me to consider whether the General Division made other reviewable errors because I’ve already found one jurisdictional error, so it allows me to intervene. Fixing the error [ 41 ] There are two options for fixing an error by the General Division. The first option is to send the file back to the General Division for reconsideration. The second option is to give the decision that the General Division should have given by substituting with my own decision. Footnote 21 [ 42 ] I asked the parties what I should do to fix the error—if there is one. [ 43 ] The Commission says that I should substitute with my own decision and give the decision the General Division should have given. It submits that the Claimant’s appeal was filed more than one year after the decision was communicated to him, so it cannot proceed. [ 44 ] The Claimant says that I should dismiss the Commission’s appeal. I invited him to provide submissions on how to fix the error (if any) and he offered no further submissions on this issue. [ 45 ] I also noticed that neither party attended the General Division hearing, so I asked the parties whether they had a full and fair opportunity to present their cases on all relevant issues. [ 46 ] The Commission says that they typically do not attend General Division hearings, and they are satisfied they had a full and fair opportunity. The Claimant said that he believes he got a full and fair opportunity as well. He explained that he had made a choice not to attend the afternoon hearing since he had started working a new job. Footnote 22 I will substitute and give the decision the General Division should have given [ 47 ] I will give the decision the General Division should have made. I am satisfied that the record is complete and the parties got a full and fair opportunity before the General Division. [ 48 ] I find that the Commission’s decision dated November 7, 2023 (refusing an extension of time for reconsideration) was communicated to the Claimant on December 8, 2023. This is consistent with the evidence in the file and not disputed by the parties. [ 49 ] I also find that the Claimant filed his appeal to the General Division of the Tribunal via email on September 17, 2025. Footnote 23 Accordingly, his appeal was filed more than one year late after the Commission’s decision was communicated to him. [ 50 ] I have to apply s. 52(2) of the [NAME] Act in this case. [ 51 ] Section 52(2) of the [NAME] Act clearly states the General Division may allow further time within which an appeal may be brought, but in no case may an appeal be brought more than one year after the day on which the decision is communicated to the appellant (emphasis added). [ 52 ] I find that the Claimant’s appeal cannot proceed based on s.52(2) of the [NAME] Act. The Claimant’s appeal to the General Division was brought more than one year after the day on which the decision was communicated to him. I have no discretion or authority to allow a late appeal in cases like this one. Conclusion [ 53 ] The Commission’s appeal is allowed. The General Division made a jurisdictional error by failing to decide an issue it had to decide. It had to deal with the late appeal issue. [ 54 ] The Claimant’s appeal to the General Division was over one year late from the date of communication, so it cannot proceed by law based on s. 52(2) of the [NAME] Act. Footnotes Footnote 1 See Commission’s initial and reconsideration decision at pages GD3-14 to GD3-15 and section 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See pages GD3-16 to GD3-18. This was the first reconsideration request made by the Claimant. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See General Division decision at pages AD1-10 to AD1-16. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 8(1) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure ( [NAME]). Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See sections 8(2) and 17(2) of the  [NAME]. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 The grounds of appeal are set out in section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( [NAME] Act). Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See sections 59(1) and 64 of the [NAME] Act. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See Tribunal letter dated November 25, 2025, giving the Commission permission to appeal and inviting the parties to provide written arguments by January 9, 2026. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 Listen to the audio recording of the Appeal Division hearing at around 1:31:00 to 1:32:48. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See section 58(1)(a) of the [NAME] Act. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See pages GD3-14 to GD3-15. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See paragraphs 6, 22–24 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See paragraphs 8-21 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See section 58(1)(a) of the [NAME] Act. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See pages GD3-14 to GD3-15 and section 30(1) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See page GD3-21. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See pages GD2-1 to GD2-75 and section 19(2) of the  [NAME] which says a document is considered filed on the date the Tribunal receives the document. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See section 58(1)(a) of the [NAME] Act. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 In cases where an appeal is over 30 days late, but under one year, then section 27 of  [NAME] applies. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 There are timelines to request a reconsideration of a Commission’s decision as set out in section 112(1) of the EI Act . Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See section 59(1) of the  [NAME]  Act. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See paragraph 7 of the General Division decision, section 58 of the  [NAME] and pages GD9-1 to GD9-2. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See pages GD2-1 to GD2-75 and section 19(2) of the  [NAME]. Return to footnote 23 referrer