Social Security Tribunal Denies Extension of Sickness Benefits

[TRANSLATION] Citation: [NAME] v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  38 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated January 7, 2026 (GE-25-3335) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 22, 2026 File number: AD-26-44 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead. Overview [ 2 ] The Applicant (Claimant) applied for Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) sickness benefits starting February 2, 2025. He was paid sickness benefits for a total period of 26 weeks, between February 9, 2025, and August 9, 2025. He told the Commission that he was unable to go back to work and that he wanted to be paid more sickness benefits. [ 3 ] On August 27, 2025, the Commission told the Claimant that it could not pay him [NAME]  sickness benefits starting August 11, 2025, because it had already paid the maximum 26 weeks of sickness benefits. [ 4 ] On September 12, 2025, the Claimant gave the Commission a medical certificate stating that he won’t be going back to work anytime soon. On reconsideration, the Commission maintained its initial decision. The Claimant appealed to the Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] The General Division found that the Claimant was paid 26 weeks of [NAME]  sickness benefits. That is the maximum number of weeks of sickness benefits under the law. It noted that it has no discretion to extend the sickness benefit period. The General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal. [ 6 ] The Claimant is asking the Appeal Division for permission to appeal the General Division decision. He argues that the Commission’s letter dated August 27, 2025, is confusing because it said that the decision could change if additional documents were sent to it. He provided a medical certificate in support of his reconsideration request, but it was unsuccessful. He feels wronged. He isn’t asking the Appeal Division to change the law, but he would like the intention of that letter to be respected. [ 7 ] I have to decide whether there is an arguable case that the General Division made a reviewable error based on which the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. [ 8 ] I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal. Issue [ 9 ] Does the Claimant’s appeal have a reasonable chance of success based on a reviewable error the General Division may have made? Analysis [ 10 ] The law specifies the only grounds of appeal of a General Division decision. Footnote 1 These reviewable errors are the following: The General Division hearing process wasn’t fair in some way. The General Division didn’t decide an issue that it should have decided. Or, it decided something it didn’t have the power to decide. The General Division based its decision on an important error of fact. The General Division made an error of law when making its decision. [ 11 ] An application for permission to appeal is a preliminary step to a hearing on the merits. It is an initial hurdle for the Claimant to meet, but it is lower than the one that has to be met at the hearing of the appeal on the merits. At the permission to appeal stage, the Claimant doesn’t have to prove his case; he has to instead establish that his appeal has a reasonable chance of success. This means that he has to show that there is arguably a reviewable error based on which the appeal might succeed. [ 12 ] I will give permission to appeal if I am satisfied that at least one of the Claimant’s stated grounds of appeal gives the appeal a reasonable chance of success. I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal [ 13 ] The Claimant argues that the Commission’s letter dated August 27, 2025, is confusing because it said that the decision could change if additional documents were sent to it. He provided a medical certificate in support of his reconsideration request, but it was unsuccessful. He feels wronged. He isn’t asking the Appeal Division to change the law, but he would like the intention of that letter to be respected. [ 14 ] The evidence shows that the Claimant applied for [NAME]  sickness benefits starting February 2, 2025. He was paid sickness benefits for a total period of 26 weeks, between February 9, 2025, and August 9, 2025. He told the Commission that he was unable to go back to work and that he wanted to be paid more sickness benefits. [ 15 ] The General Division found that the Claimant was paid 26 weeks of [NAME]  sickness benefits. That is the maximum number of weeks of sickness benefits under the law. Footnote 2 [ 16 ] Even if the Appeal Division reached the conclusion that the Commission’s letter dated August 27, 2025, was in fact confusing, it could not give the Claimant additional weeks of sickness benefits. [ 17 ] While I sympathize with the Claimant, the law doesn’t give the General Division and the Appeal Division any discretion to grant an extension of the 26-week period of sickness benefits, even for compassionate reasons. [ 18 ] After reviewing the appeal file, the General Division decision, and the arguments in support of the application for permission to appeal, I am of the view that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. The Claimant hasn’t raised any issue that could justify setting aside the decision under review. Conclusion [ 19 ] Permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See section 12(3)(c) of the Employment Insurance Act . Return to footnote 2