SST Allows Commission to Reconsider Claimant's Benefit Rate

OUTCOME: Allowed

[TRANSLATION] Citation: Canada Employment Insurance Commission  v  SF , 2026  SST  325 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] General Division decision dated January 16, 2026 (GE-25-3294) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: April 24, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant’s representative Respondent Decision date: May 1, 2026 File number: AD-26-78 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Remedy Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. The Appellant (Commission) used its discretion to reconsider judicially when it corrected the weekly benefit rate of the Respondent (Claimant). Overview [ 2 ] The employer, F. I., corrected the Claimant’s Record of Employment ( ROE ) twice, covering a period in 2020. The Commission retroactively reconsidered his claim for benefits and established a $2,117 overpayment. The Claimant disagreed and appealed to the Tribunal’s General Division. [ 3 ] The General Division found that the Commission hadn’t used its discretion judicially when it decided to reconsider the Claimant’s claim for benefits. It allowed his appeal. [ 4 ] The Commission was given permission to appeal the General Division decision to the Appeal Division. It argues that the General Division made an error of law when it decided that the Commission hadn’t used its discretion judicially. [ 5 ] The Commission’s appeal is allowed. Issue [ 6 ] Did the General Division make an error of law when it found that the Commission hadn’t used its discretion to reconsider judicially? Analysis [ 7 ] Before the General Division, the Claimant argued that all his steps had been taken in good faith, and that his former employer and the Commission had made administrative errors. The Commission wasn’t able to process the application within a reasonable time. He argued that paying back the debt was causing him financial hardship. He asked for the $2,117 he owed to be written off. [ 8 ] The General Division found that the Commission, in using its discretion, hadn’t considered the following: the Claimant’s good faith, the employer’s errors, and the financial harm caused to him. It found that the Commission hadn’t used its discretion judicially when it decided to reconsider his claim for benefits. [ 9 ] I am of the view that the General Division made an error of law by not applying Federal Court of Appeal case law. The Federal Court of Appeal has established that a claimant’s personal circumstances aren’t relevant in analyzing the Commission’s use of discretion. This is because there is a specific procedure for when financial hardship is a factor. Footnote 1 [ 10 ] Given the General Division’s error, I am justified in intervening. Remedy [ 11 ] Since the file before the General Division is complete, I am able to give the decision that the General Division should have given. [ 12 ] The employer, F. I., corrected the Claimant’s ROE twice. As a result of these corrections, his benefit rate dropped from $573 to $500. The Commission retroactively reconsidered his claim for benefits, and it established a $2,117 overpayment. [ 13 ] On August 5, 2023, a notice of debt for $2,117 was sent to the Claimant. [ 14 ] Case law has established that the only limitation on the Commission’s power to reconsider under section 52 of the Employment Insurance Act  ( EI  Act) is time. This means that the Commission might reconsider a claim under section 52, even if there are no new facts. [ 15 ] Since the Claimant’s claim started on October 18, 2020, the Commission acted within the 36‑month time frame set out in section 52(1) of the EI  Act. [ 16 ] But the decision to reconsider a claim under section 52 is a discretionary one. This means that, even though the Commission has the power to reconsider a claim, it doesn’t have to do so. [ 17 ] The law says that discretionary powers have to be used judicially. This means that, when the Commission decides to reconsider a claim, it can’t act in bad faith or for an improper purpose or motive, consider an irrelevant factor, ignore a relevant factor, or act in a discriminatory manner. [ 18 ] The Commission has developed a policy to help it use its discretion to reconsider decisions under section 52 of the EI  Act. The policy says that a claim will be reconsidered only when one of the following situations happens: Benefits have been underpaid. Benefits were paid contrary to the structure of the law. Benefits were paid as a result of a false or misleading statement. The claimant should have known there was no entitlement to the benefits received. [ 19 ] In this case, there is no doubt that benefits were paid to the Claimant contrary to the structure of the EI  Act. [ 20 ] In my view, the Commission used its discretion judicially under section 52 of the EI  Act. [ 21 ] The Commission reconsidered the Claimant’s claim after an ROE that the employer had corrected twice. ROE s are relevant and essential factors to consider. This is because they provide insurable earnings so that the Commission can calculate the weekly benefit rate. [ 22 ] I have to find that the Commission considered all relevant information when reconsidering the Claimant’s claim. No new relevant facts were presented at the General Division hearing that the Claimant hadn’t already provided to the Commission. [ 23 ] The [APPELLANT] good faith and the employer’s errors don’t change the fact that he received benefits contrary to the structure of the law. Nothing shows that the Commission considered irrelevant information or acted in bad faith or in a discriminatory manner. [ 24 ] The delay in processing the file stems largely from the challenge that the [APPELLANT] brought on September 15, 2023, saying that he hadn’t worked for the employer, F. I., in 2020. The Commission had to investigate that employer. [ 25 ] The Commission also acted for a proper purpose in reconsidering whether the Claimant was entitled to the benefit rate initially established. [ 26 ] For these reasons, the Commission’s appeal should be allowed. Conclusion [ 27 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 28 ] The Commission used its discretion judicially when it corrected the Claimant’s weekly benefit rate. [ 29 ] I acknowledge the Commission’s commitment to decide the Claimant’s write‑off request after my decision. Footnotes Footnote 1 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FCA  148; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FCA  46. Return to footnote 1 referrer