Social Security Tribunal Denies Appeal Permission for Employment Insurance Benefits Case

Citation: [NAME]  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  6 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated November 14, 2025 (GE-25-2749) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 8, 2026 File number: AD-25-793 On this page Decision Overview Issues I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am refusing leave (permission) to appeal. The appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] J. B. is the Applicant. I will call him the Claimant because this application is about his claim for Employment Insurance ( EI benefits). The Respondent is the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, which I will call the Commission. [ 3 ] The Claimant had two jobs. He took an unpaid leave from the first job, “X,” in September 2024, and established a claim for EI benefits. However, he also had another casual, part-time job at “Y.” He was laid off from Y on January 11, 2025. At that point, he had not worked a shift with Y for about two months. [ 4 ] Y recalled the Claimant to his part-time job on February 24, 2025, but he did not return to work. As a result, Y treated him as having abandoned his employment. [ 5 ] When the Commission discovered that the Claimant had left Y, it decided that he voluntarily left his job with Y on February 24, 2025, and that he did not have just cause to do so. It said that he was not entitled to regular benefits starting February 23, 2025. The Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider but it would not change its decision. [ 6 ] When the Claimant appealed the reconsideration decision to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal, the General Division dismissed the appeal. It agreed with the Commission that the Claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he left his job without just cause on February 24, 2025. This meant that he would have to repay the benefits he had received for weeks of unemployment after he left Y. [ 7 ] The Claimant is asking the Appeal Division for permission to appeal the General Division decision. [ 8 ] I am refusing permission to appeal. The Claimant has not made out an arguable case that the General Division acted unfairly, or that it made any other kind of error that I can consider. Issues [ 9 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error of procedural fairness? [ 10 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division ignored or misunderstood relevant evidence? I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal General principles that apply to all leave to appeal applications [ 11 ] For the Claimant’s application for leave to appeal to succeed, his reasons for appealing would have to fit within the “grounds of appeal.” The grounds of appeal identify the kinds of errors that I can consider. [ 12 ] I may consider only the following errors: a) The General Division hearing process was not fair in some way. b) The General Division did not decide an issue that it should have decided. Or, it decided something it did not have the power to decide (error of jurisdiction). c) The General Division based its decision on an important error of fact. d) The General Division made an error of law when making its decision. Footnote 1 [ 13 ] To grant this application for leave and permit the appeal process to move forward, I must find that there is a reasonable chance of success on one or more grounds of appeal. Other court decisions have equated a reasonable chance of success to an “arguable case.” Footnote 2 [ 14 ] On the form for applying to the Appeal Division for permission to appeal, the Claimant selected the ground of appeal described as an error of procedural fairness. However, he did not provide any kind of explanation for why he thought the General Division had made this error. [ 15 ] I wrote to the Claimant on December 12, 2025, and I asked him to explain why he was appealing. My letter restated the errors which made up the grounds of appeal, and I informed the Claimant that these were the only reasons I could consider. [ 16 ] I gave the Claimant until December 31, 2025, to respond to my letter. I have not received any response as of the date of this decision. Error of procedural fairness [ 17 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division acted in a way that was procedurally unfair. [ 18 ] “Procedural fairness” is concerned with the fairness of the process. It is not concerned with whether a party feels that the decision result is fair. [ 19 ] Parties before the General Division have a right to certain procedural protections such as the right to be heard and to know the case against them, and the right to an unbiased decision-maker. [ 20 ] The Claimant did not say that he did not have a fair chance to present his case at his hearing, or to respond to the Commission’s case. He has not complained that the General Division member was biased or that he had already prejudged the matter. [ 21 ] When I read the decision and review the appeal record, I do not see that the General Division did anything, or failed to do anything, that causes me to question the fairness of the process. Important error of fact [ 22 ] I appreciate that the Claimant is unrepresented. Despite my letter, he may not have understood precisely what he should argue. Therefore, I searched the record for relevant evidence that the General Division may have ignored or misunderstood. Footnote 3 [ 23 ] The record does not support an argument that the General Division may have made an important error of fact. The General Division did not ignore or misunderstand any evidence concerning the circumstances of his departure from Y. [ 24 ] The Claimant’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success. Conclusion [ 25 ] I am refusing permission to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 This is a plain-language version of the grounds of appeal. The full text is in section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESDA ). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)  v  [NAME] , 2007  FCA  41; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2017  FC  259. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 I am following the direction of the Federal Court in decisions such as [NAME]  v.  Canada (Attorney General ), 2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 3 referrer