Social Security Tribunal Overturns Benefit Reconsideration Decision

[TRANSLATION] Citation: FM  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  343 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated February 18, 2026 (GE-25-3583) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: April 22, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent Respondent’s representative Decision date: June 19, 2026 File number: AD-26-128 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Remedy Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 2 ] The General Division made an error of law by not assessing whether the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) had acted judicially when it decided to reconsider the benefit claim. [ 3 ] The General Division didn’t use its jurisdiction on the issue of imposing a non‑monetary penalty in the form of a warning letter. [ 4 ] I am giving the decision that should have been given. [ 5 ] The Commission didn’t act judicially when it decided to reconsider the Claimant’s benefit claim. The decision to reconsider the benefit claim is rescinded. [ 6 ] So, there is no overpayment. [ 7 ] The Claimant didn’t knowingly make a false statement. I am removing the warning letter from his file. Overview [ 8 ] The Claimant established a benefit period as of September 27, 2020. He received [NAME] ) regular benefits. Footnote 1 On August 6, 2021, he called the Commission to say that he had received earnings for some periods while EI  benefits were being paid. Footnote 2 On October 6, 2023, the Commission asked for additional information on this subject. Footnote 3 It told the Claimant that the employer, X, said it had paid him earnings between September 27, 2020, and September 5, 2021. The Commission also noted that X said that the Claimant had fractured his ankle on July 8, 2021. The Commission wanted to know whether he was still able to work at that time, since he had said that he was capable of and available for work. [ 9 ] The Claimant responded to the Commission’s request on October 27, 2023. Footnote 4 He said that he had voluntarily reported amounts of money received from an employer other than X. He said that he was 16 years old at the time and might have made a mistake. He confirmed that he fractured his ankle. He wrote that he hadn’t worked at X since September 28, 2020. [ 10 ] On November 12, 2025, the Commission found that the Claimant hadn’t reported the wages received from X during his benefit period. Footnote 5 The Commission said that he had to pay back the benefits he wasn’t entitled to. It added that he knowingly hadn’t reported his income 14 times. The Commission asked him to pay back a $3,237 overpayment. Footnote 6 [ 11 ] The Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider its decision. In his reconsideration request, he said that he doubted his employer had actually paid him those amounts. Footnote 7 He said that he had tried to check his [COMPANY] statements, but they no longer exist, since the period in question was more than five years ago. His Records of Employment ( ROE s) from X had errors in them. The [NAME] had recognized him as having a major impairment. He provided a medical certificate confirming multiple diagnoses. These diagnoses have resulted in permanent impairment causing significant and persistent incapacity for 2025 and 2026. Footnote 8 [ 12 ] The Commission upheld its decision on the earnings that weren’t reported. It confirmed its decision to issue a warning letter in the Claimant’s file. [ 13 ] The Claimant appealed this decision to the General Division. The General Division dismissed his appeal. Footnote 9 It found that he hadn’t reported 14 weeks of earnings, and that he had to pay back the amount the Commission said he owed. [ 14 ] The Claimant then asked the Appeal Division for permission to appeal. I gave him permission to appeal. [ 15 ] The Claimant alleges that the General Division made many errors in its decision. Footnote 10 He says that it made an error in giving its decision before receiving a decision from the Canada Revenue Agency ( CRA ). He also alleges that his showing of good faith was ignored. He believes that his voluntary disclosure should have been considered, and that, as a result, he didn’t make a false statement. He says that the Commission had only 36 months to reconsider his claim. So, it has no right to ask him to pay back an overpayment 5 years after the benefits were paid. He also alleges that his medical reality, that is, his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and dyscalculia, made it very difficult for him to manage the forms. He completed his 14 statements in a single session. He also disputes having worked at X until September 2021. He says that he only worked at X until September 28, 2020. [ 16 ] The Commission is asking the Appeal Division to dismiss the appeal. Footnote 11 It argues that there was no need to receive a decision from the CRA . This is because the General Division had jurisdiction to find whether the Claimant had received wages during his benefit period. Footnote 12 The Commission says that procedural fairness was followed. The Commission says that the General Division didn’t make an error when it found that there was no reason to doubt the amounts that the employer recorded on the ROE s. The Commission also says that the General Division noted some amounts should have been reported, and that this is enough to establish that false statements were made. This allows for the reconsideration period to be extended to 72 months. [ 17 ] Finally, the Commission acknowledges that the General Division had to find whether it had used its discretion to impose a penalty judicially. Issues [ 18 ] I decided the following issues: Did the General Division make an error of law by not considering whether the Commission had acted judicially when it reconsidered the Claimant’s benefit claim? Did the General Division refuse to use its jurisdiction by not addressing the issue of the warning letter? If so, what is the appropriate remedy? Analysis The grounds of appeal that allow the Appeal Division to intervene [ 19 ] The appeal has to involve one of the grounds of appeal set out in the law. So, I have to decide whether there is an arguable case that the General Division made one of the following errors: It breached the principles of procedural fairness. It made an error of jurisdiction. It made an error of law. It made an important error of fact. Footnote 13 The General Division didn’t find whether the Commission had used its discretion to reconsider judicially [ 20 ] In its decision, the General Division didn’t focus much on applying section 52 to Mr. M.’s case. It cited section 52 of the Employment Insurance Act  ( [NAME]), noting that the law says a false statement might result in having to pay back overpaid benefits. Footnote 14 It also said that the [NAME] allows the Commission to go back up to 6 years when amounts that should have been reported weren’t. Footnote 15 [ 21 ] But the General Division didn’t explicitly address the issue of section 52. The General Division didn’t consider whether the Commission had acted judicially when it decided to reconsider the Claimant’s benefit claim. It didn’t refer to or apply the test established in Purcell to find whether discretion had been used judicially. Footnote 16 [ 22 ] The Claimant said that he disagreed with the decision to retroactively change his benefits, five years after he had received them. The General Division should have explicitly addressed the issue of the Commission using its discretion. Footnote 17 [ 23 ] Given this error of law, I can intervene. [ 24 ] I will also address a second error that the General Division made. The parties agree that the General Division should have decided whether the Commission could impose a warning letter [ 25 ] The Commission imposed a warning letter on the Claimant. [ 26 ] In the reconsideration decision, the Commission said that it was upholding its decision to issue a warning letter for committing an act or omission. Footnote 18 [ 27 ] In his notice of appeal, the Claimant said that he disputed having made false statements. Footnote 19 [ 28 ] At the General Division hearing, the Claimant also pointed out how the warning letter could affect his case. [ 29 ] The Claimant disputes having committed an act or omission. A warning letter can only be imposed if an act or omission has been committed. [ 30 ] In fact, the Commission might impose a penalty when it becomes aware of facts that establish that the Claimant has knowingly made a false or misleading representation. Footnote 20 [ 31 ] Respectfully, the General Division seems to have ignored the issue of the warning letter in its decision. At the hearing, the General Division member confirmed that there was a warning on file, but that the hearing was about the overpayment issue. Footnote 21 [ 32 ] But, since this issue was on appeal, the General Division had to find, first, whether the Claimant had knowingly made false statements. Second, it had to find whether the Commission had used its discretion to impose a warning judicially. The General Division decision includes no analysis or finding on this issue. [ 33 ] At the Appeal Division hearing, the Commission’s representative conceded that the General Division should have found whether the Commission had used its discretion to impose a warning judicially. [ 34 ] The General Division didn’t use its jurisdiction on this issue. [ 35 ] So, I can intervene in the General Division decision. Remedy I will give the decision that should have been given [ 36 ] Both parties want me to give the decision that should have been given. But they don’t want the same findings. [ 37 ] The Claimant would like me to decide in his favour by: writing off his $3,237 debt ordering that the amounts already seized be paid back removing the warning letter for committing an act or omission from his file [ 38 ] The Commission wants me to dismiss the Claimant’s appeal on the merits. This is because it finds that he has to pay back the overpayment created by the earnings received while benefits were being paid. The Commission says that I might decide whether it used its discretion to impose the warning letter judicially. [ 39 ] The record is complete. The parties were given a fair and impartial process before the General Division. [ 40 ] So, I will give the decision that should have been given. Footnote 22 The law also allows me to decide any question of fact or law to determine the outcome of this appeal. Footnote 23 The Commission didn’t use its discretion to reconsider judicially [ 41 ] The Commission has the power to reconsider a benefit claim under section 52 of the [NAME] . But it isn’t required to do so. [ 42 ] The decision to reconsider a benefit claim is part of an exceptional system and has to be strictly construed. Footnote 24 [ 43 ] The Federal Court of Appeal said that the burden of proof on the Commission when it wishes to go back more than three years to claim reimbursement of an overpayment isn’t a light one. Footnote 25 This is because the consequences that the claimants face might be significant. The Federal Court of Appeal said that the Commission had to be reasonably satisfied that a false or misleading statement or representation had been made. The Commission ignored relevant factors in using its discretion [ 44 ] Any discretion has to be used in accordance with the law. Footnote 26 If the Commission acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose or motive, took into account an irrelevant factor or ignored a relevant factor, or acted in a discriminatory manner, then the decision will have to be set aside. Footnote 27 [ 45 ] The Appeal Division has previously found that the Commission’s decision to reconsider a benefit claim reflects the tension between the finality of decisions and the accuracy that the Commission looks for when paying benefits under the law. Footnote 28 [ 46 ] In other words, claimants should be able to rely on the decisions given regarding their benefit claim, without worrying that they might be changed years later. Also, Parliament wanted the Commission to adjust the amount of benefits paid in some cases. [ 47 ] The Federal Court of Appeal, in [NAME] , tells us that one of the factors to consider is whether false statements were made. Footnote 29 [ 48 ] But, in this case, the Commission didn’t consider many pieces of evidence the Claimant provided. These pieces of evidence raise doubts as to whether he made false statements. [ 49 ] In addition, the Commission ignored relevant factors by not considering what the Claimant knew and how he behaved. Footnote 30 [ 50 ] It is important to note that the investigation started because the Claimant voluntarily called Service Canada to report earnings received while benefits were being paid. He also reported that he had injured his ankle. Footnote 31 He even reported receiving higher earnings for the week starting March 7, 2021, than what the employer claimed to have paid him. The Claimant disclosed that he earned $297 for the week starting March 7, 2021. But, according to his employer, he allegedly earned less, specifically $155.31 for that week. Footnote 32 This is relevant because it shows that he was trying to be accurate in his statements to the Commission, rather than misleading it. [ 51 ] The pieces of evidence brought to the attention of the General Division also have to be considered when deciding whether to reconsider a benefit claim. Footnote 33 Both the Claimant and his mother testified that he didn’t work at X during the period in question, and that he had injured his ankle. Footnote 34 He also submitted his [NAME] slips for the years 2020 through 2022, but they weren’t considered. [ 52 ] The Commission should also have considered how young the Claimant was. He was a minor when he applied for EI  benefits. Footnote 35 This is relevant to the Commission when deciding whether false statements were made. [ 53 ] The Commission should also have considered the Claimant’s medical diagnoses. The Claimant submitted a certificate from the [NAME] recognizing that he has a permanent impairment resulting in a significant and persistent incapacity. The certificate from his general practitioner lists the following diagnoses: heterogeneous cognitive functioning with some weaknesses, particularly in reasoning visuospatial difficulties mild specific learning disorder in mathematics ADHD with moderate impulsivity history of Tourette syndrome social anxiety disorder Footnote 36 [ 54 ] The Claimant’s health is a relevant factor because it affected how he behaved when completing his reports. [ 55 ] The Commission should also have considered how the passage of time impacted the Claimant’s ability to rebut the evidence that his employer provided. The Claimant said that he had contacted X many times but was told his file no longer existed. Footnote 37 He also tried to get copies of his pay stubs from [NAME], but former employees can no longer access that system. Footnote 38 Finally, he also said that his [COMPANY] could not find his pay stubs because it had been more than five years since he had been paid. Footnote 39 [ 56 ] So, by the time the Commission decided to reconsider his claim, five years had passed between the start of his benefit period and the decision requiring him to pay back an overpayment. The Commission should have considered how the passage of time impacted the steps the Claimant took to get evidence that he hadn’t made a false statement. [ 57 ] Even though the Commission could technically go back six years to reconsider the claim if it found that the Claimant had made a false statement, it still had to decide whether it was appropriate to do so. [ 58 ] The Commission should also have considered the fact that a Service Canada agent allegedly told the Claimant, during a call in 2023, not to worry because there would be no consequences for him regarding his case. Footnote 40 This affected his decision not to keep evidence of his pay stubs because he didn’t think he would be asked to pay back any money. [ 59 ] This means that the Commission ignored relevant factors, making its decision non‑judicial. The Commission should not have reconsidered the benefit claim [ 60 ] Since the decision to reconsider the file was made in a non‑judicial manner, this decision has to be rescinded. [ 61 ] Second, I find that reconsidering the Claimant’s claim isn’t appropriate. [ 62 ] The Commission developed a non‑binding policy that guides it in its decisions to reconsider benefit claims under section 52 of the [NAME]. Footnote 41 The Commission established in this policy that it will reconsider a claim only in the following cases: Benefits have been underpaid. Benefits were paid contrary to the structure of the [NAME]. Benefits were paid as a result of a false or misleading statement. The claimant ought to have known there was no entitlement to the benefits received. [ 63 ] None of those cases applies to the present case. [ 64 ] First, benefits haven’t been underpaid. [ 65 ] Also, the benefits weren’t paid contrary to the structure of the [NAME]. In fact, allocating earnings received while benefits were being paid has nothing to do with the structure of the [NAME]. [ 66 ] In addition, the Claimant could not have known that he was receiving benefits he wasn’t entitled to, since, according to his version of facts, he would, in fact, be entitled to them. [ 67 ] Finally, the Claimant didn’t receive benefits as a result of false statements. It hasn’t been shown that the Claimant made false statements [ 68 ] The Claimant strongly disputes the earnings that X says it paid him between October 27, 2020, and September 11, 2021. [ 69 ] The Commission asked him about other income he had allegedly received from X while benefits were being paid, and that he hadn’t reported. Footnote 42 The Claimant replied in writing that he was sure he hadn’t earned any money while unemployed. He said that he had called to report amounts received, but from an employer other than X. He wrote that he hadn’t worked at X since September 28, 2020, and that he had fractured his ankle after that. In fact, the ROE  X shows that the Claimant stopped working on September 28 because of illness or injury. Footnote 43 [ 70 ] He reiterated many times to the Commission that he had never worked at X during his EI  period, that is, from September 27, 2020, to September 5, 2021. Footnote 44 [ 71 ] The documentary evidence supports the Claimant’s testimony that he didn’t make a false statement. In fact, the [NAME] slip from X for the year 2020 contradicts the amounts that the Commission accuses him of not reporting. [ 72 ] Specifically, the Commission accuses the Claimant of not reporting the following earnings from X in 2020: Footnote 45 For the week starting: The income that X reported: The income that the Claimant reported: September 27, 2020 $147 $0 October 4, 2020 $307 $0 October 11, 2020 $369 $0 October 25, 2020 $357 $0 November 8, 2020 $36 $0 November 29, 2020 $372 $0 December 13, 2020 $178 $0 December 20, 2020 $671 $0 December 27, 2020 $304 $0 [ 73 ] The Claimant acknowledges having received earnings of $922.01 as shown on the ROE  X, for the period from September 12 to September 28, 2020. Footnote 46 The Commission, in its written arguments, said that the ROE showed earnings totalling $992.01. But this figure doesn’t match the one found on the ROE . Footnote 47 [ 74 ] Looking only at the year 2020 for the purpose of this exercise, the Commission accuses the Claimant of not having reported earnings totalling $2,741. He allegedly received these earnings from X in 2020. [ 75 ] But the [NAME] slip from X for the year 2020 shows that the Claimant allegedly received less than that for the entire year of 2020. This includes earnings received before the start of the benefit period. Footnote 48 The [NAME] slip shows that he received $2,236.48 in employment income from X in 2020. [ 76 ] Already, there is a discrepancy of about $500 between what the Commission accuses the Claimant of not reporting, and the employment income that X confirms having paid him for the entire year of 2020. This is according to the [NAME] slip. And it should be noted that, according to the ROE covering the period from September 12 to September 28, 2020, the Claimant earned $922.01, almost entirely outside the benefit period. When comparing his [NAME] slip from X with the ROE covering the period from September 12 to September 28, 2020, it shows that he allegedly received earnings of approximately $774.29 from X before his benefit period started. Footnote 49 [ 77 ] So, the Claimant allegedly earned only $1,462.19 at X in 2020 outside the period from September 12 to 26, 2020, according to that employer’s [NAME] slip. And I don’t know whether he worked at X before September 12, 2020. [ 78 ] The Commission says that the Claimant should have reported $2741 in wages from X between the weeks of September 27 and December 27, 2020. But the [NAME] slip from X for 2020 contradicts this information. [ 79 ] It is possible for an employer to make a mistake on an ROE . The Commission can’t accept an ROE as fact, without considering the testimony and evidence of a claimant to dispute it. [ 80 ] There are discrepancies between the [NAME] slip and the amounts specified in the Commission’s reconsideration decision. The discrepancies seriously call into question whether the information on the ROE that X issued is reliable. The Commission based its finding of false statements on that ROE . Footnote 50 [ 81 ] I asked the parties to comment on these differences in the earnings that the Claimant allegedly received in 2020. The Commission’s arguments don’t allow the differences between the amounts to be reconciled. Footnote 51 [ 82 ] The Commission responded that the ROE  Y covered only the pay periods starting on October 25, 2020. It said that it had to contact the employer directly to get information regarding the earnings received between October 10 and October 25, 2020. This was because that period wasn’t included on either of the two ROE s. [ 83 ] The Commission refers to GD3‑30 to support that it contacted the employer. But GD3‑30 is simply a letter from Service Canada. The letter lists the amounts that the employer allegedly reported the Claimant as having earned each week. [ 84 ] This is a letter asking for information to be disclosed. It doesn’t constitute evidence. It isn’t clear where this information came from, who gave it to Service Canada, or how it was given. The information in the letter isn’t linked to any source, such as an ROE , notes of a discussion with the employer, etc. So, it doesn’t explain the discrepancies. [ 85 ] Also, regarding the significant discrepancies between the amounts the Commission says the Claimant didn’t report for 2020, and the [NAME] slip from X for 2020, the Commission didn’t provide any information to show that the false statements it accuses him of making are accurate. [ 86 ] In addition, there is no [NAME] slip from X for 2021. I note that the Claimant worked for different employers between 2020 and 2022. He provided 12 [NAME] slips right after his hearing before the General Division, at the Tribunal’s request. There is a [NAME] slip from X for 2020 and 2022, but not for 2021. Footnote 52 This tends to support the Claimant’s statement that he didn’t work at X in 2021. [ 87 ] It is possible that the Claimant has a [NAME] slip from X for the year 2021 and simply didn’t submit it to the General Division. But I have no reason to doubt his good faith. So, I give probative value to the fact that he submitted 12 [NAME] slips for the period from 2020 to 2022. There is no [NAME] slip from X for the year 2021 among all these statements. [ 88 ] We can’t impose a burden of proof on the Claimant that is impossible to meet. In other words, it is difficult for a claimant to prove a negative proposition, such as that they didn’t make a false statement. In this specific context, the fact that there is no [NAME] slip supports the Claimant’s testimony that he didn’t work at X in 2021. [ 89 ] I draw a parallel with [NAME] . Footnote 53 In that case, the Federal Court found that a Claimant had been truthful when she said that she hadn’t received any earnings while benefits were being paid. But the Federal Court found that she should have presented her documentary evidence earlier, either to the Commission or before the General Division, when she had the opportunity to do so. Footnote 54 [ 90 ] In the case before us, the Claimant presented testimonial and documentary evidence. This evidence has to be considered when deciding whether to reconsider his claim. And this evidence raises doubts as to whether he made false statements. The other relevant factors don’t argue in favour of a reconsideration [ 91 ] In the specific case before us, I find that the impact of the delay in accessing documentation related to his pay is relevant. This is because the Commission is essentially asking the Claimant to prove a negative proposition. [ 92 ] The Claimant, who is credible, gave detailed testimony to the General Division about the many steps he took to get a copy of his pay stubs from both his employer, X, and his [COMPANY]. His efforts weren’t successful. [ 93 ] The consequences of the passage of time are well documented in the file. The Claimant said that he had called X many times to get a copy of his pay stubs. He was told that they no longer existed in their system. Footnote 55 He also said that he had checked with his [COMPANY] to get a copy of his pay stubs, but that he wasn’t able to access them because of the time that had passed. Footnote 56 At the hearing before the General Division, his mother testified that they had done everything they could to prove their position, but they no longer remembered the dates clearly. They also weren’t able to find the evidence they needed because so many years had passed since the benefits were paid. Footnote 57 [ 94 ] The passage of time, in this context, prevented the Claimant from accessing his pay stubs. The delay of more than five years in reconsidering the claim argues against reconsidering it. [ 95 ] Also, his health, the fact that he called on his own initiative to report income, and his young age all argue in favour of upholding the finality of the decisions regarding his benefit, rather than in favour of a reconsideration. [ 96 ] It is important to note that reconsidering a benefit claim is an exceptional measure. It is a mechanism designed to make sure that benefits are paid out more accurately. But, in Mr. M.’s specific case, reconsidering his benefits would not lead to greater accuracy, given that there is no reliable information showing that he made false statements. [ 97 ] So, in this specific case, it is best to uphold the finality of the decisions regarding Mr. M.’s benefit claim. [ 98 ] So, it isn’t appropriate to reconsider his benefit claim. [ 99 ] This means that his benefit claim, established on September 27, 2020, doesn’t need to be reconsidered. I am removing the penalty (warning letter) from the Claimant’s file The Claimant didn’t knowingly make a false statement [ 100 ] The Commission might impose a penalty when it becomes aware of facts that establish that the Claimant has knowingly made a false or misleading representation. Footnote 58 [ 101 ] Section 41.1(1) of the [NAME] says that the Commission may issue a warning instead of setting the amount of a penalty for an act or omission. [ 102 ] The Federal Court of Appeal tells us in [NAME] that a subjective test has to be used to determine whether the required knowledge exists. Footnote 59 [ 103 ] It is the Commission that bears the burden of proving that false statements were made. Footnote 60 [ 104 ] But the Commission didn’t consider factors that affected the Claimant’s subjective comprehension. In assessing his subjective knowledge, the Commission had to consider the following factors: his medical diagnoses, how young he was when he made his statements, and the fact that he contacted the Commission on his own initiative to make statements. [ 105 ] As explained above in my decision, the Commission didn’t meet its burden of proof. It didn’t show that the Claimant made false statements. [ 106 ] It also didn’t show that the Claimant knowingly made false statements. [ 107 ] I find that the facts of this case don’t warrant a penalty. Conclusion [ 108 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 109 ] The General Division didn’t decide whether the Commission had acted judicially when it reconsidered the Claimant’s benefit claim. [ 110 ] The General Division didn’t use its jurisdiction on the issue of imposing a penalty (warning letter). [ 111 ] I gave the decision that should have been given. [ 112 ] The benefit claim doesn’t need to be reconsidered. [ 113 ] I am removing the penalty (warning letter) from the Claimant’s file. [ 114 ] So, the Claimant didn’t receive an overpayment. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the Service Canada agent’s certification at GD3-34. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See the notes of a telephone conversation at GD3-19. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See the letter at GD3-23. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See the Claimant’s clarification letter at GD3-25. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See the notice of decision at GD3-112. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See the notice of debt at GD3-115. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See the reconsideration request at GD3-122. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See the medical certificate at GD3-125. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See the General Division decision at AD1A. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See the Claimant’s arguments at AD5-2 and AD5-3. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See the Commission’s arguments at AD4. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 The Commission cites the Federal Court of Appeal decision in [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2009  FCA  365 at para 10. See the Commission’s arguments at AD4-8. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act  ( DESD  Act). Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See para 11 of the General Division decision at AD1A-3. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See para 18 of the General Division decision at AD1A-5. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Canada (Attorney General)  v  Purcell (C.A.), [1996] 1  FC  644. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See the Appeal Division decision in [NAME]  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2022  SST  931. The Appeal Division found that the General Division had to explicitly address the issue of using discretion. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See the reconsideration decision at GD3-135. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See the notice of appeal at GD2-11. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See sections 38(1)(a) and 41.1 of the Employment Insurance Act  ( [NAME]). Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 Listen to the audio recording of the General Division hearing at 0:06:00. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See section 59(1) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See section 64(1) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2002  FCA  157 at para 17. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2002  FCA  157 at para 17. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Canada (Attorney General)  v  Purcell (C.A.), [1996] 1  FC  644. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Canada (Attorney General)  v  Purcell (C.A.), [1996] 1  FC  644. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See the Appeal Division decision in MS  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2022  SST  933 at para 46. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See the Federal Court of Appeal decision in [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FCA  46 at para 17. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See the Appeal Division decision in MS  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2022  SST  933 at para 51. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See the notes regarding the Claimant’s voluntary disclosure made on August 6, 2021, at GD3-19. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See the request for information after the Claimant’s disclosure at GD3-22. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2003  FCA  463 at para 22. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 Listen to the testimony of the Claimant’s mother at 0:16:55, 0:20:21, and 0:23:20. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See the Claimant’s reconsideration request at [NAME]. He said that he was 16 years old when he applied for [NAME] ) benefits. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See the medical certificate at GD3-125. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 Listen to the recording of the General Division hearing at 0:16:10. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 Listen to the recording of the General Division hearing at 0:28:30. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See the reconsideration request at [NAME]. Listen to the recording of the General Division hearing at 0:13:55. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 Listen to the recording of the General Division hearing at 0:12:20 and 0:13:30. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See the Federal Court of Appeal decision in [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FCA  46 at para 17. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See the request for information after the Claimant’s disclosure at GD3-22. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See the Record of Employment ( ROE ) at GD3-15. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See the Claimant’s reconsideration request at [NAME]. In this request, he said that he sincerely doubted that the amounts had been paid to him. See also the statements he made to the Commission over the phone at GD3-129. In these statements, he said that he doubted he had been paid for all the weeks under investigation. Also, listen to the Claimant’s testimony at the General Division at 0:13:50. He denied receiving the amounts that X reported. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See the reconsideration decision at GD3-111. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See the ROE  X at GD3-15. Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 See the arguments that the Commission made after the hearing at AD7-2. Return to footnote 47 referrer Footnote 48 See the [NAME] slip from X for 2020 at GD8-9. Return to footnote 48 referrer Footnote 49 I took the total amount that X paid the Claimant, as shown on the ROE , from September 12 to 28, 2020. This amount was $922.01. I subtracted $147.72, the amount he allegedly received for September 27 and 28, 2020, according to the Commission. So, he allegedly earned $774.29 from September 12 through September 26, 2020, outside the benefit period. Return to footnote 49 referrer Footnote 50 See the ROE  Y at GD3-17. Return to footnote 50 referrer Footnote 51 See the Commission’s arguments at AD7. Return to footnote 51 referrer Footnote 52 See the 12 [NAME] slips that the Claimant submitted at GD8. Return to footnote 52 referrer Footnote 53 See the Federal Court decision in [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  199. Return to footnote 53 referrer Footnote 54 See the Federal Court decision in [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  199 at paras 48 to 50. Return to footnote 54 referrer Footnote 55 Listen to the recording of the General Division hearing at 0:13:50. Return to footnote 55 referrer Footnote 56 Listen to the recording of the General Division hearing at 0:28:00 and 0:38:00. Return to footnote 56 referrer Footnote 57 Listen to the recording of the General Division hearing at 0:14:00 and 0:30:45. Return to footnote 57 referrer Footnote 58 See section 38(1)(a) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 58 referrer Footnote 59 See the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2017  FCA  104 at para 11. Return to footnote 59 referrer Footnote 60 See the Federal Court decision in [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2020  FC  743. Return to footnote 60 referrer