VadeLab
RefusedSocial Security Tribunal of Canada (Employment Insurance)·

Social Security Tribunal Denies Claimant’s Appeal Permission for EI Benefits

Case No. 2026 SST 246 · Member Glenn Betteridge

📌 In brief

A person seeking to challenge an Employment Insurance (EI) decision must first get permission from the Social Security Tribunal. In this case, the Tribunal refused to grant permission because the claimant did not show any significant procedural or legal issues with the initial decision.

⚖️ Legal holding

A claimant seeking to appeal an Employment Insurance decision must demonstrate an arguable case that the General Division made a procedural fairness error, jurisdictional error, legal error, or important factual error.

Topics

employment insuranceappeals process

📖 Technical summary

The claimant's application for permission to appeal a General Division decision regarding Employment Insurance benefits was denied due to lack of procedural fairness or other arguable errors.

📜 Headnote Official document

The claimant applied for leave to appeal a General Division decision regarding Employment Insurance benefits. The Tribunal denied the application, finding no arguable case of procedural fairness or other errors that would give the claimant a reasonable chance of success.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Refused

Citation: KW  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  246 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated March 20, 2026 (GE-26-719) Tribunal member: [NAME] date: March 26, 2026 File number: AD-26-269 On this page Decision Overview Issue I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is denied. [ 2 ] This means [APPELLANT].’s appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 3 ] [APPELLANT]. is the Claimant in this case. She has applied for permission to appeal a General Division decision. Footnote 1 I will give her permission if she has a reasonable chance of winning her appeal. [ 4 ] The General Division decided two issues. First, the Claimant filed her appeal late—past the 30 day deadline to appeal the Commission’s reconsideration decision in her EI claim. Second, it could not extend the time for her to file her appeal because she didn’t give a reasonable explanation—or any explanation—for her delay. So, it refused to accept her appeal. [ 5 ] The Claimant argues the General Division made a procedural fairness error. [ 6 ] Unfortunately for the Claimant, she hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made that error, or another error the law lets me consider. So, her appeal has no reasonable chance of success and can’t go forward. Issue [ 7 ] Does the Claimant’s appeal have a reasonable chance of success? I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal The permission to appeal test screens out appeals with no reasonable chance of success Footnote 2 [ 8 ] The [APPELLANT] has applied for permission to appeal. I give permission when there’s an arguable case the General Division made an error that gives a claimant a reasonable chance of winning their appeal. Footnote 3 [ 9 ] The law says I can consider four types of errors—the General Division used an unfair procedure, or made a jurisdictional error, a legal error, or an important factual error. Footnote 4 The [APPELLANT] appeal doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success [ 10 ] The Claimant checked the procedural fairness error box on her application form. Footnote 5 Then she gives her explanation. I am appealing the decision and I am asking for reconsideration for my El claim, I was unaware that after my sick benefits ended on February 28th that I was not eligible for regular El benefits. I have sent in a updated Dr note from my family doctor stating that I am able to start looking for work. I have attached my Dr medical notes for review. [ 11 ] Procedural fairness is about the process the General Division used to consider and decide the Claimant’s appeal—not about its decision or the outcome in the appeal. [ 12 ] The Claimant’s reasons aren’t about the General Division process, or even the issues the General Division decided. She seems to be arguing against the Commission’s reconsideration decision to disqualify her for voluntarily leaving her job without just cause. Footnote 6 And is asking to change the type of benefits in her EI claim. The General Division refused to hear her appeal of the Commission’s reconsideration decision because she didn’t appeal in time, or explain her delay appealing. [ 13 ] So, the Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made a procedural fairness error. And her reasons don’t show an arguable case the General Division made another type of error the law lets me consider. [ 14 ] The [APPELLANT] is representing [NAME]. So I reviewed the General Division file. Footnote 7 [ 15 ] I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division used an unfair procedure. When the Claimant didn’t explain her delay on her appeal form, the General Division effectively gave her an extra nine days to explain. She didn’t respond. And I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division made a jurisdictional error, a legal error, or based its decision on a mistake about the facts. [ 16 ] This tells me the Claimant doesn’t have a reasonable chance of winning her appeal. Conclusion [ 17 ] I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal the General Division decision. Footnotes Footnote 1 The Appeal Division process has two steps. First, a person applies for permission to appeal a General Division decision. If they don’t get permission, their appeal can’t go forward. Second, if they get permission, they get to argue their case in writing or at a hearing. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD  Act); [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  1282 at paragraph 32. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  11. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 58(1) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See AD1-3. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See sections 29(c) and 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act . Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See GD2, GD3, GD4, GD6, GD7, GD8, GD9, and GD10. Return to footnote 7 referrer

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The claimant must demonstrate an arguable case of error by the General Division to obtain leave to appeal.
  • The claimant must provide detailed and supported reasons for alleged errors in the General Division's decision to have a reasonable chance of winning their appeal.
  • A claimant must present new evidence or an arguable case that the lower tribunal made an error or acted unfairly to warrant an extension of time or permission to appeal.
  • The applicant must demonstrate a reasonable explanation for delay in filing an appeal and provide arguable grounds for review to obtain an extension of time.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision denied the claimant's application for leave to appeal a General Division decision on Employment Insurance benefits.

Who was involved?

A person seeking Employment Insurance (EI) benefits and the Canada Employment Insurance Commission.

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal decided against granting permission because the claimant failed to demonstrate any procedural or legal errors that would give her a reasonable chance of success.

Which laws or rules were applied?

No specific laws or rules were cited in this decision as it was purely procedural.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The claimant's failure to show an arguable case of procedural fairness or other errors that would give her a reasonable chance of success.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

Against the claimant, as permission to appeal was denied.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone seeking to challenge an EI decision must first show that there is a reasonable chance of success based on procedural fairness or other errors before they can proceed with an appeal.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The claimant's application form and the General Division file were reviewed, but no additional evidence was submitted.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

A decision denying leave to appeal is generally not appealable, though judicial review may be an option in some cases.

Is it worth getting a lawyer for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified lawyer when considering challenging an EI decision.

Official source: Social Security Tribunal of Canada (Employment Insurance) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Social Security Tribunal of Canada (Employment Insurance). It is a reproduction of an official work published by the Government of Canada, and the reproduction has not been produced in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of, the Government of Canada. It is not an official version.