Parental Benefits Appeal Denied by Social Security Tribunal

Citation: [NAME]  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  15 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 19, 2025 (GE-25-3264) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 14, 2026 File number: AD-25-837 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. O. O.’s appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] O. O. is the Claimant. His child was born on September 1, 2024, and he applied for standard parental benefits on June 24, 2025. He initially asked for 5 weeks of standard parental benefits but later asked for 14 weeks instead. Footnote 1 [ 3 ] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that the Claimant was only entitled to get 10 weeks of standard parental benefits because the parental benefit window ended on September 6, 2025. Footnote 2 [ 4 ] The General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal. It found that he was only entitled to get 10 weeks of standard parental benefits because the parental benefit window ended 52 weeks after the week in which the child was born. Footnote 3 [ 5 ] The Claimant wants permission to appeal. He argues that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process. Footnote 4 [ 6 ] I am denying permission to appeal because the Claimant’s arguments don’t show that he has an arguable case upon which the appeal might succeed. So, I can’t give him permission to appeal. Footnote 5 Issues [ 7 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process or made any legal or important factual errors? Analysis [ 8 ] The law says that I can consider four types of errors, and they include, a failure to follow a fair process, jurisdictional errors, legal errors, and important factual errors. Footnote 6 These are often called “reviewable errors”. [ 9 ] I can only give the Claimant permission to appeal if there’s an “arguable case” that the General Division made a reviewable error that gives his appeal a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 7 [ 10 ] The Claimant set out his reasons for appealing, and I have considered them. Footnote 8 I’ve also reviewed the General Division decision, the file record and listened to the audio recording of the hearing. Some of the Claimant’s arguments overlap with other types of errors, so I will also consider whether the General Division made any legal and factual errors. I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal [ 11 ] The Claimant checked off the box in his application form that says the General Division didn’t follow a fair process, but his written arguments also overlap with other reviewable errors. So, I will also consider whether the General Division made any legal and important factual errors. Footnote 9 [ 12 ] The Claimant argues that he got incorrect information from Service Canada staff and there was miscommunication from his employer which influenced his actions and decisions. Footnote 10 He explains that Service Canada told him he would be eligible for benefits and could resume work on October 3, 2025. As well, Service Canada communicated with his employer. There is no arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process, made any legal errors or important factual errors [ 13 ] Natural justice is about the fairness of the process, and it includes certain procedural protections. Parties before the General Division have procedural protections such as the right to be heard, to know the case against them, to timely receipt of the notice of hearing and documents, and the right to an unbiased decision-maker are some examples. If the General Division didn’t follow a fair process, then I can intervene. Footnote 11 [ 14 ] The General Division makes a legal error when it misinterprets a law, doesn’t follow a court decision it has to follow, or doesn’t give adequate reasons for its decision. Footnote 12 And a factual error happens when the General Division has “based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.” Footnote 13 [ 15 ] The law sets out the period when parental benefits can be paid. Footnote 14 This is often called the “parental benefit window.” Footnote 15 The parental benefit window ends 52 weeks after the week of the child’s birth (or the date of placement in cases of adoption). Footnote 16 [ 16 ] The main facts in this case weren’t in dispute. The Claimant’s child was born on September 1, 2024. Footnote 17 He applied for standard parental benefits on June 24, 2025 and initially asked for 5 weeks of standard parental benefits and later asked the Commission to pay him for 14 weeks instead because his wife had returned to work earlier than planned. Footnote 18 [ 17 ] The Commission ended up paying him only 10 weeks of standard parental benefits from June 29, 2025, to September 5, 2025, because his parental benefit window ended. Footnote 19 [ 18 ] The General Division in this case had to decide how many weeks of parental benefits the Claimant was entitled to get based on his parental benefit window. [ 19 ] The General Division decided that the standard parental benefit window ended on September 6, 2025, so he was only entitled to 10 weeks of standard parental benefits. Footnote 20 [ 20 ] The General Division also found that the Claimant didn’t meet any of the exceptions set out in law that would allow the parental benefit window to be extended. Footnote 21 The evidence shows that the Claimant confirmed with the Commission that his child was not hospitalized, so the parental benefit window could not be extended for that reason. Footnote 22 There is no indication from the file record that any of the other extensions set out in law were applicable in this case. Footnote 23 [ 21 ] I see no arguable case that the General Division made any legal errors. It correctly stated and applied the law and case law in its decision. Footnote 24 [ 22 ] The General Division also specifically addressed the Claimant’s arguments about the misinformation he received from Service Canada and explained that it had no power to amend the law, even if he got inaccurate information. Footnote 25 [ 23 ] [ADDRESS] has already said that even in cases where inaccurate information is provided by the Commission, whether in good faith or bad faith, it is void and the  Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act) must apply. Footnote 26 That includes inaccurate information provided to the Claimant or the employer. [ 24 ] I see no arguable case that the General Division made any important factual errors when it dealt with the parental benefit issue. The General Division’s key findings are consistent with the evidence. It didn’t misinterpret or ignore any relevant evidence. [ 25 ] And there is no arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process. The hearing was held by teleconference. It was a brief hearing, only lasting around 13 minutes but the audio recording shows that the Claimant got an opportunity to testify and fully present his case. [ 26 ] There are no other reasons for giving the Claimant permission to appeal. Footnote 27 Conclusion [ 27 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the Claimant’s appeal will not proceed. It has no reasonable chance of success. Footnotes Footnote 1 See page GD3-21. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See Commission’s reconsideration decision at pages GD3-31. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See General Division’s decision at pages AD1A-1 to AD1A-5. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See Application to the Appeal Division at pages AD-1 to AD1-8. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2016  FC  11 at paragraph 12 and sections 56(1) and 58(2) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See page AD1-8. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See page AD1-3. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See page AD1-8. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See section 58(1)(a) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See section 58(1)(b) of the  DESD  Act. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See section 23(2) of the Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act). Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 Although the EI Act doesn’t use the term “parental benefit window” I am calling using this term in my decision. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See section 23(2) of the  EI  Act. Also, when a person elects to receive extended parental benefits, the window is extended by 26 weeks for a total of 78 weeks. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See paragraph 14 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See page GD3-21. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See payment chat at pages GD3-32 to GD3-33 and paragraph 16 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See paragraph 15 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See paragraphs 12–13 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See page GD3-28 and section 23(3) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See paragraph 12 of the General Division and section 23(3) and 23(3.4) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See paragraphs 11–13, 19–21 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See paragraphs 18–21 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See Granger   v   Canada (Canada Employment and Immigration Commission),  [1989] 1 S.C.R. 141, and  Canada (Attorney General)   v   [NAME] , 2002  FCA  372. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 The Federal Court has suggested such a review in decisions like  [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General),  2016  FC  874 and  [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General),  2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 27 referrer