SST Denies Claimant Leave to Appeal EI Decision

OUTCOME: Refused

Citation: AC  v  Canada [NAME] Commission , 2026  SST  256 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated February 27, 2026 (GE-26-550) Tribunal member: [NAME] date: March 27, 2026 File number: AD-26-271 On this page Decision Overview Issue I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Information for the Claimant Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is denied. This means [APPELLANT].’s appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 2 ] [APPELLANT]. is the Claimant in this case. He has applied for permission to appeal a General Division decision. Footnote 1 I will give him permission if he has a reasonable chance of winning his appeal. [ 3 ] The General Division decided three issues. First, the Claimant missed the 30-day deadline to file his reconsideration request. Second, the Commission didn’t act properly and fairly when it refused to extend the time. This meant the General Division could decide whether to extend the time. Third, it could not extend the time because he didn’t give a reasonable explanation for his delay, and he didn’t have an ongoing intention to request a reconsideration. So it dismissed his appeal. [ 4 ] The [APPELLANT] reasons for appeal aren’t about the General Division decision. [ 5 ] His appeal doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success. So I can’t give him permission to appeal. Issue [ 6 ] 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 [ 7 ] 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 [ 8 ] 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] reasons aren’t about the General Division process or decision—he hasn’t shown an arguable case it made an error [ 9 ] The complexity of social legislation is a harsh reality for people who are representing themselves. But the [NAME] reconsideration and appeals process isn’t a learning period. Footnote 5 [ 10 ] On the Claimant’s application form, he checked the important error of fact box. Footnote 6 Then he explains he didn’t quit, he was laid off by his employer in 2021. [ 11 ] But the General Division’s decision wasn’t about the underlying “quit versus lay-off” issue and the resulting overpayment. It was about whether the [APPELLANT] should get an extension of time to ask the Commission to reconsider its decision that he quit without just cause. [ 12 ] Because none of the [APPELLANT] reasons for appeal is about the General Division process or decision, he hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error. [ 13 ] The [APPELLANT] is representing himself. So when I applied the permission to appeal test I looked beyond his arguments. Footnote 7 I reviewed the documents in the General Division file, the applicable law, and the General Division decision. Footnote 8 [ 14 ] I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division based its decision on a mistake about the facts. I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division misinterpreted the law it had to use to decide his appeal. And I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division process was unfair to the [APPELLANT]. As the General Division pointed out, he chose a written hearing. And the law says the Tribunal should respect that choice unless it would cause unfairness. [ 15 ] This tells me the [APPELLANT] doesn’t have a reasonable chance of winning his appeal. Information for the Claimant [ 16 ] Unfortunately for the [APPELLANT], my decision leaves him with a large overpayment and debt. [ 17 ] The [APPELLANT] says there has been an error. He didn’t quit, he was laid off. To prove he was laid off by X in 2021, he sent a letter from his supervisor with his application to appeal. The Appeal Division can’t consider this new evidence. And the letter isn’t relevant to the legal issues in the General Division decision, or my decision. [ 18 ] But section 111 of the [NAME] gives the Commission the power to cancel or change a decision it made without knowing an important fact; or based on a mistake about a fact. [ 19 ] The [APPELLANT] might choose to send the Commission his supervisor’s letter. And ask it to cancel or change its decision he voluntarily left X. [ 20 ] The [NAME] gives the [APPELLANT] two other options. He can apply to the Commission to write off his debt, if he hasn’t already done that. He would have to show he didn’t cause the overpayment and penalty or make a false declaration. He has to show his employer made an error (with his ROE, for example) or the Commission made an error. If he can’t afford to repay the debt, he can try to negotiate a payment plan or apply for relief from the debt based on financial hardship. Contact the Canada Revenue Agency Collection Service Centre at 1-[PHONE]. Footnote 9 Conclusion [ 21 ] The [APPELLANT] appeal doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success. This means I can’t give him permission to appeal. 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 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  29 at paragraph 8. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See AD1-4. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 The Appeal Division should not apply the leave to appeal test mechanistically and in some circumstances should review the General Division file. [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  874; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  615; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2017  FC  391. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 I reviewed these documents from the General Division file: GD2, GD3, and GD4. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 For more information, please go to Call us if you can’t pay in full or on time - Debt collection at the CRA - Canada.ca (https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/when-you-money-collections-cra/contact-canada-revenue-agency-about-your-debt.html). Return to footnote 9 referrer