SST Denies Claimant Permission to Appeal EI Case

OUTCOME: Refused

Citation: AH  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  225 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated February 11, 2026 (GE-26-72) Tribunal member: [NAME] date: March 23, 2026 File number: AD-26-172 On this page Decision Overview Issue I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal the General Division decision is denied. [ 2 ] This means [APPELLANT].’s appeal won’t go forward. Footnote 1 Overview [ 3 ] [APPELLANT]. is the Claimant in this case. He is asking for permission to appeal a General Division decision. I will give him permission if he has a reasonable chance of winning his appeal. [ 4 ] The General Division decided the Commission used its power properly, fairly, and in time when it reconsidered his claim. Footnote 2 It also decided he didn’t report some of his employment income during his EI claim. Finally, it decided the Commission correctly determined the amount of unreported income, and correctly allocated it to weeks in his claim. Footnote 3 So, the General Division dismissed his appeal. [ 5 ] This left him with an overpayment and debt. Footnote 4 [ 6 ] The Claimant disagrees with the General Division decision. On his application to appeal, he checked the box that says the General Division made an important factual error. [ 7 ] But he hasn’t given any reasons or an explanation to support that error. And I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division made that error. This means he doesn’t have a reasonable chance of winning his appeal. And his appeal can’t go forward. Issue [ 8 ] Does the [APPELLANT] appeal have a reasonable chance of success? I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal [ 9 ] For the reasons that follow, I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal. The permission to appeal test screens out appeals without a reasonable chance of success Footnote 5 [ 10 ] 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 person a reasonable chance of winning their appeal. Footnote 6 [ 11 ] 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 7 No arguable case the General Division made an important factual error [ 12 ] The General Division makes an important factual error when it bases its decision on a factual finding it reached by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. Footnote 8 Relevant means evidence that fits into the legal test. [ 13 ] The [APPELLANT] checked the important factual error box on his application form. Footnote 9 But he didn’t explain or give details or examples of how the General Division made this error. I wrote to him and gave him another chance to explain. He didn’t respond by the deadline I set. [ 14 ] When a person doesn’t explain or give details about an alleged error, their argument about that error has no reasonable chance of success. Footnote 10 So, the Claimant’s important factual error argument has no reasonable chance of success. [ 15 ] Before making my decision, I reviewed the documents in the General Division file. Footnote 11 Then I compared the evidence from the documents to the General Division’s factual findings and the evidence it used to reach those findings. Footnote 12 Unfortunately for the [APPELLANT], I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division ignored or misunderstood relevant evidence. In other words, I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division made an important factual error. Conclusion [ 16 ] The [APPELLANT] appeal doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success. This means his appeal can’t go forward. Footnotes Footnote 1 The Appeal Division process has two steps. (1) A person applies for permission to appeal a General Division decision. If they don’t get permission, their appeal ends. (2) If they get permission, they get to argue their appeal in writing or at a hearing. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 52(5) of the Employment Insurance Act ( EI  Act), and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , A-694-94 ( FCA ). Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See sections 35 and 36(4) of the Employment Insurance Regulations . Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See sections 19(2), 52(2) and (3), and 43 of the EI  Act. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 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 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  11. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 58(1) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 Section 58(1)(c) of the DESD  Act says it is a ground of appeal where the General Division based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. I have described this ground of appeal using plain language, based on the words in the Act and the cases that have interpreted the Act. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See AD1-3. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FC  1326 at paragraph 59. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD2, GD3, and GD4. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 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 12 referrer