Request for Permission to Appeal Employment Insurance Parental Benefits Denied

Citation: DP  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  73 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated November 26, 2025 (GE-25-3011) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: February 3, 2026 File number: AD-25-802 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 ) parental benefits. When he applied for EI benefits, he chose the “standard” option. [ 3 ] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) paid a standard parental benefit to the Applicant on July 28, 2025. After this happened, the Applicant asked to have the type of parental benefit changed to “extended”. The Commission said because payment was already made the election had become irrevocable. The Applicant asked the Commission to reconsider but it didn’t change its position. [ 4 ] The Applicant then applied to the Social Security Tribunal General Division. The General Division agreed with the Commission. It said the election was irrevocable because a payment was received before the Applicant asked to have things changed. [ 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 The Applicant didn’t explain an error the General Division made [ 6 ] I asked the Applicant to send in information about why he was appealing the General Division decision. The Applicant checked off that the General Division made an important error of fact. But didn’t give any explanation about his reason for appealing. [ 7 ] On January 6, 2026, I wrote the Applicant and explained, “You checked the box that you believe the General Division made an important error of fact. But you didn’t provide any explanation about what you think the error is. Leave to appeal can only be granted if you raise an arguable case about how the General Division made an error (a mistake). This means that you need to explain HOW the General Division made an error.” Footnote 1 The Applicant didn’t send in additional information as of the date of issuance of this decision. Issue [ 8 ] Is there an arguable case the General Division made an important error of fact? I am not giving the Applicant permission to appeal [ 9 ] An appeal can only go ahead if the Appeal Division gives an applicant permission to appeal. Footnote 2 I have to be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 3 There has to be an arguable ground upon which the appeal might succeed. Footnote 4 [ 10 ] There are only certain grounds of appeal that the Appeal Division can consider. Footnote 5 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. [ 11 ] 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 important error of fact [ 12 ] An error of fact happens when the General Division makes its decision based on an erroneous (wrong) finding of fact that was “made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it”. Footnote 6 This means the General Division had to ignore, misunderstand or overlook the evidence in some way. [ 13 ] The Applicant hasn’t explained how he thinks the General Division ignored, misunderstood or overlooked evidence. In his Notice of Appeal to the General Division, he said he mistakenly chose standard instead of extended parental benefits. Footnote 7 During his General Division hearing the Applicant said he didn’t realize he was choosing benefits for himself and his wife. He said he felt there should have been a red flag or something in bold that his choice would affect his wife. Footnote 8 The Applicant recognized he made a mistake and chose the wrong type of benefits. But he felt the Commission should have allowed this mistake to be fixed. Footnote 9 [ 14 ] The General Division dealt with everything the Applicant raised during that hearing. Footnote 10 So, the General Division didn’t ignore the Applicant’s position, and it understood what he argued. It can’t be said then that the General Division overlooked what the Applicant argued. [ 15 ] The General Division explained the law. Footnote 11 It said once a parental benefit payment has been made, the election (standard or extended) becomes irrevocable. This is by operation of law. Footnote 12 Additionally, the law also says the first person to make an election about the type of benefits binds both claimants. Footnote 13 [ 16 ] 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 14 [ 17 ] I realize the Applicant says he made a mistake and he didn’t know. But the General Division applied the law as it was required to do. The Applicant hasn’t explained any fact the General Division misunderstood. I reviewed the documents on file and listened to the hearing recording, and the General Division appears to have understood the Applicant’s position. [ 18 ] The Applicant hasn’t shown how there was an error with what the General Division decided. It seems he disagrees with the General Division’s decision. This isn’t a basis for the Appeal Division to step in. The Appeal Division doesn’t just review the same arguments presented to the General Division. Unless there is an error, I can’t just reweigh the evidence that was before the General Division. Footnote 15 There is no arguable case the General Division made an important error of fact. 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 16 Conclusion [ 20 ] 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 January 6, 2026. 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 AD1-4 for the Application to the Appeal Division form the Applicant filled out. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 56(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See section 58(2) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2024  FC  928 at paragraph 13; O’[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 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. The grounds listed are also known as errors. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See GD2-5 of the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal to the General Division and listen to the General Division hearing recording at 00:13:08. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD3-8 of the Commission’s Reconsideration File. This is part of the application the Applicant filled out. That page explains the difference between standard and extended benefits and explains, in bold, that whoever fills out the application for benefits first will bind the other parent. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 Listen to the General Division hearing recording at 00:17:34. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See the General Division decision at paragraph 14. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 16, and 21. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See section 23(1.2) of the Employment Insurance Act . Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See section 23(1.3) of the Employment Insurance Act . Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 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 14 referrer Footnote 15 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2021  FCA  222 at paragraph 7; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) 2022  FCA  157 at paragraph 27. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 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 16 referrer