Parental Benefits Election Irrevocable Once Payment Issued

Citation: EC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  27 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated November 22, 2025 (GE-25-2997) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 19, 2026 File number: AD-25-760 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matters Issues I am not giving the Applicant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. The appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] [NAME]. is the Applicant. She applied for Employment Insurance ( EI ) maternity and parental benefits on February 3, 2025. The Applicant selected to have extended parental benefits to begin following her maternity benefits. [ 3 ] The Applicant later asked the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) to change the parental benefits from extended to standard. But this was after she had already received a parental benefit payment. [ 4 ] The Commission refused. It said once a parental benefit is paid, the election becomes irrevocable. The Applicant asked the Commission to reconsider, but it didn’t change its position. [ 5 ] The Applicant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal General Division. The General Division agreed with the Commission. It said the election became irrevocable once a parental benefit payment was issued. [ 6 ] The Applicant has asked for permission to appeal the General Division’s decision. I am denying the Applicant’s request for permission to appeal because there is no reasonable chance of success. Preliminary matters The Applicant didn’t explain an error the General Division made [ 7 ] I asked the Applicant to send in information about why she was appealing the General Division decision. The Applicant checked the box that the General Division made an error of jurisdiction but didn’t provide any explanation about her reasons. [ 8 ] On December 11, 2025, I wrote the Applicant and explained, “leave to appeal can only be granted if you raise an arguable case about how the General Division made an error (mistake). This means that you need to explain HOW the General Division made an error.” Footnote 1 On December 24, 2025, the Applicant requested more time to respond to my request. The Applicant said she needed an additional two weeks and said she would provide a response by January 12, 2026. Footnote 2 As of the date of this decision, the Applicant didn’t send in additional information. Issues [ 9 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Is there an arguable case the General Division made an error of jurisdiction? b) Is there an arguable case the General Division made any reviewable error? I am not giving the Applicant permission to appeal [ 10 ] An appeal can only go ahead if the Appeal Division gives an applicant permission to appeal. Footnote 3 I have to be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 4 There has to be an arguable ground upon which the appeal might succeed. Footnote 5 [ 11 ] There are only certain grounds of appeal that the Appeal Division can consider. Footnote 6 Briefly, the Applicant has to show the General Division did one of the following: It acted unfairly in some way. It decided an issue it shouldn’t have, or didn’t decide an issue it should have. This is also called an error of jurisdiction. It made an error of law. It based its decision on an important error of fact. [ 12 ] So, for the Applicant’s appeal to go ahead, I have to find there is a reasonable chance of success on any of those grounds. There is no arguable case the General Division made an error of jurisdiction [ 13 ] 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. In this case, the General Division had to decide whether the Applicant could change her extended parental benefits election to standard. [ 14 ] The Applicant received an extended parental benefit payment in August 2025. Footnote 7 She then called Service Canada and asked to have the parental benefits changed from extended to standard because she felt the payment wasn’t enough. Footnote 8 [ 15 ] The Commission refused to change the Applicant’s election. It said once a parental benefits payment is received the election becomes irrevocable. The Federal Court of Appeal has repeatedly found that once parental benefits are paid, the election can’t be changed. Neither the Commission nor the Tribunal has the power to cancel or alter that election. Footnote 9 [ 16 ] The General Division explained the difference between standard and extended parental benefits. Footnote 10 The General Division explained that the Applicant had selected extended benefits and only asked for this to be changed after receiving a payment. Footnote 11 [ 17 ] The General Division explained the law and said it had no choice but to follow what the law says. In this case, once a parental benefits payment has been made the choice becomes irrevocable. Footnote 12 [ 18 ] The General Division understood what the Applicant was asking. The facts haven’t been disputed. She wanted her parental benefits election to be changed from extended benefits to standard. The General Division considered this and made a decision. There is no arguable case the General Division made an error of jurisdiction. There is no arguable case the General Division made a reviewable error There are no additional errors in the General Division decision [ 19 ] Because the Applicant is self-represented, I reviewed the file, listened to the hearing recording, and looked at the decision the Applicant is appealing. I haven’t found any reviewable error that the General Division may have made. Footnote 13 [ 20 ] The General Division provided the Applicant with a fair process. It applied the correct legal test. It made the decisions it had to decide. There is no arguable case the General Division made an important error of fact. This means there is no arguable case the General Division made a reviewable error that would allow the Appeal Division to step in. Conclusion [ 21 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 This was in a letter to the Applicant dated December 11, 2025. Under section 4 of the Notice of Appeal form to the Appeal Division, it explains that permission to appeal must first be granted. It says there must be an arguable case the General Division made an error and lists the errors that can be considered. See AD1-3 for the Application to the Appeal Division form the Applicant filled out. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 The Tribunal confirmed this in a letter to the Applicant dated December 29, 2025. Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 See section 56(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 See section 58(2) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC  928 at paragraph 13; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General), 2018  FC  498; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC  115 at paragraph 12; and [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FC  259 at paragraph 16. Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. The grounds listed are also known as errors. Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 See GD3-20 of the Commission’s Reconsideration File showing the extended benefit payment. Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 See GD3-21 and GD3-22 a record of the Applicant’s call and the Applicant’s request for reconsideration to the Commission. Return to footnote 8 Footnote 9 See Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2023 FCA  49 at paragraph 15. See also: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2021 FC  395; Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2022 FCA  82; and Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2022 FC  1402. Return to footnote 9 Footnote 10 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 10 to 12. Return to footnote 10 Footnote 11 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 13 to 15. Return to footnote 11 Footnote 12 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 17 to 20. Return to footnote 12 Footnote 13 The Federal Court has said I must do this in decisions like [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2016 FC  874 and [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2016 FC  615. Return to footnote 13