Permission to Appeal EI Backdating Decision Denied

Citation: SP v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  9 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 8, 2025 (GE-25-2993) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 12, 2026 File number: AD-25-818 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matters Issue 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. He applied for Employment Insurance ( EI ) benefits on February 18, 2025. The Applicant asked that his claim be antedated (backdated) to January 5, 2025. [ 3 ] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) refused to antedate the claim. The Applicant still qualified for EI benefits and the Commission said the claim would start on February 16, 2025. Footnote 1 The Applicant asked the Commission to reconsider but it didn’t change its position. [ 4 ] The Applicant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal General Division. The General Division agreed with the Commission. It said the Applicant’s claim couldn’t be antedated. [ 5 ] 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 [ 6 ] The Applicant didn’t check off any reason for his appeal. Footnote 2 So, I wrote the Applicant on December 24, 2025, and requested that he provide additional information. I explained, “Although, a brief note has been provided, it is not enough to understand HOW the General Division made an error (mistake). At the Appeal Division we are looking at whether the General Division made an error in its process or decision. Leave to appeal can only be granted if you raise an arguable case about how the General Division made an error.” The Applicant didn’t provide a response as of the date of issuance of this decision. Issue [ 7 ] Is there an arguable case the General Division made a reviewable error? I am not giving the Applicant permission to appeal [ 8 ] 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 [ 9 ] 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. [ 10 ] 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. Because the Applicant is self-represented, I reviewed the file, listened to the hearing recording, and looked at the decision the Applicant is appealing. Footnote 7 There is no arguable case the General Division made a reviewable error The General Division’s process was fair [ 11 ] A fair process is also called natural justice. These principles include making sure parties have a fair opportunity to present their case and have it decided by an impartial decision-maker. [ 12 ] The Applicant didn’t attend the first hearing the General Division held. But instead of proceeding, the General Division adjourned the hearing. The Applicant attended the second hearing. The General Division gave the Applicant full opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The Applicant hasn’t alleged that the General Division did something unfair. I reviewed the record. There is nothing that suggests the General Division didn’t provide a fair process. The General Division made the decisions it needed to make [ 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, there is no suggestion the General Division decided something it shouldn’t have or didn’t decide something it should have. The General Division applied settled law to the facts of the case [ 14 ] The General Division set out the correct legal test. Footnote 8 The Applicant was required to show good cause for the delay in applying for EI benefits. This meant showing that he acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have in similar circumstances. He also had to demonstrate that he took reasonably prompt steps to inform himself of his rights and obligations under the law. If he didn’t do so, he had to show there were exceptional circumstances that prevented him from taking those steps. [ 15 ] The General Division reviewed the positions of the Commission and the Applicant. Footnote 9 The General Division then applied the law to the facts of this case. Footnote 10 [ 16 ] The General Division decided the Applicant didn’t show good cause for delaying his application for EI benefits. As a result, the General Division agreed with the Commission. [ 17 ] The courts have made it clear that the Appeal Division can only step in when the General Division’s findings are “unreasonably detached from the evidentiary record.” Footnote 11 In this case, the General Division laid out the law and the facts. It then applied the law to the facts of the case in its decision. [ 18 ] The Applicant hasn’t explained how there was an error with what the General Division decided. Rather, he disagrees with the outcome of the decision the General Division made. The Applicant said, “The General Division made a judgment call that I disagree with.” Unfortunately, this doesn’t explain any potential reviewable error. I don’t have the authority to step in on questions about how the law was applied to the facts of a case. Those questions involve both fact and law, and the Appeal Division doesn’t have the power to deal with them. [ 19 ] The General Division provided the Applicant with a fair process. It made the decisions it had to decide. It applied the correct legal test. 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 [ 20 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD3-29 of the Commission’s Reconsideration File. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See AD1-3 of the Applicant’s Application to the Appeal Division. 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 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 7 Footnote 8 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 10 to 15. Return to footnote 8 Footnote 9 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 16 to 25. Return to footnote 9 Footnote 10 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 30 to 36. Return to footnote 10 Footnote 11 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC  328, at paragraph 28. Return to footnote 11