SST Denies Claimant Permission to Appeal on EI Benefits

OUTCOME: Refused

Citation: RB  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  [NAME]  253 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] decision dated March 11, 2026 (GE-26-494) Tribunal member: [NAME] date: March 26, 2026 File number: AD-26-268 On this page Decision Overview Issue I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am refusing leave (permission) to appeal. The appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] [APPELLANT]. is the Applicant. I will call her the Claimant because this application is about her claim for Employment Insurance ( EI ) benefits. The Respondent is the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, which I will call the Commission. [ 3 ] The [APPELLANT] quit her job on March 11, 2025, but she did not apply for EI benefits until November 6, 2025. She asked the Commission to treat her application as though it had been made on March 9, 2025. This is called “antedating” a claim. She told the Commission that her application was delayed because she thought she did not qualify and because she was having mental health problems. [ 4 ] The Commission refused to antedate. It did not accept that the Claimant had shown that she had “good cause” for delaying her application for benefits. [ 5 ] When the Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider, it would not change its decision. The Claimant appealed to the [NAME] of the Social Security Tribunal. The [NAME] agreed with the Commission that the [APPELLANT] did not have good cause for the delay, so it dismissed the appeal. [ 6 ] The [APPELLANT] next applied to the Appeal Division for permission to appeal the [NAME] decision. [ 7 ] I am refusing permission to appeal. The Claimant has not made out an arguable case that the [NAME] made an important error of fact. Issue [ 8 ] Is there an arguable case that the [NAME] made an important error of fact when it found that the Claimant did not have good cause for delaying her application for benefits? I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal [NAME] principles that apply at the leave to appeal stage [ 9 ] For the [APPELLANT] application for leave to appeal to succeed, her reasons for appealing would have to fit within the “grounds of appeal.” The grounds of appeal identify the kinds of errors that I can consider. [ 10 ] I may consider only the following errors: a) The [NAME] hearing process was not fair in some way. b) The [NAME] did not decide an issue that it should have decided. Or, it decided something it did not have the power to decide (error of jurisdiction). c) The [NAME] based its decision on an important error of fact. d) The [NAME] made an error of law when making its decision. Footnote 1 [ 11 ] To grant this application for leave and permit the appeal process to move forward, I must find that there is a reasonable chance of success on one or more grounds of appeal. Other court decisions have equated a reasonable chance of success to an “arguable case.” Footnote 2 [ 12 ] In her application for leave to appeal, the Claimant selected the ground of appal concerns with an “important error of fact.” Important error of fact [ 13 ] The [NAME] makes an important error of fact when it bases its decision on a finding that ignores or misunderstands relevant evidence, or on a finding that does not follow rationally from the evidence. Footnote 3 [ 14 ] The Commission may only antedate a claim when it accepts that the claimant had good cause for the delay throughout the entire period of the delay. Footnote 4 The [NAME] agreed with the Commission that the [APPELLANT] had not shown that she had good cause for the delay. [ 15 ] The [APPELLANT] disagreed with this finding, repeating the reasons she gave the [NAME]. She said that she had not known much about EI benefits, but that she thought she could not apply because she quit her job. She also said that she was not in good mental health, and unable to think clearly about what she should do. [ 16 ] The [NAME] acknowledged and understood her reasons for delaying her application so long. It noted that the Claimant had some memory lapses, but found that she was honest and not trying to mislead. [ 17 ] However, it did not accept that the Claimant had shown she had good cause for the delay because she did not do what a reasonable and prudent person would do to look into her rights and obligations. Footnote 5 The [NAME] found that the [APPELLANT] relied on what she understood about benefit eligibility from her friends. It said she should have contacted the Commission or gone to its website to receive accurate information about benefit entitlement. [ 18 ] The Claimant also told the [NAME] that she was not in any psychological state to apply. The [NAME] considered her psychological condition, and how she said she was increasingly depressed between March and November 2025. But it found she could still have looked into her rights and obligations, because of the other things of which she had been capable. [ 19 ] The [NAME] noted that she had been in regular contact with Dr. [NAME], who was seeing her for her psychological condition. Footnote 6 Dr. [NAME] suggested that she had been capable of working at a suitable job. Dr. [APPELLANT] did not suggest the Claimant was incapable of applying for benefits. The [NAME] also noted that the Claimant had been able to sign up with [NAME] for help finding work, and that she applied for EI benefits once she learned from [NAME] that she might still be eligible. [ 20 ] The Claimant has not pointed to any evidence of her circumstances that the [NAME] overlooked, nor has she explained how the [NAME] misunderstood the evidence. Instead, she appears to disagree with how the [NAME] weighed the evidence, and with its conclusions. [ 21 ] But I have no authority to overrule the [NAME]’s findings of fact even if I might have weighed the evidence differently or reached a different conclusion. Footnote 7 I can only intervene if the [NAME] made an important finding that is unsupported by the evidence that was before it, or that ignores or misunderstands relevant evidence. [ 22 ] Following the lead of the Federal Court in [NAME], I have reviewed the record to see if there is an arguable case that any other relevant and important evidence has been ignored or misunderstood. Footnote 8 Unfortunately, I have not discovered such an argument. [ 23 ] The Claimant’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success. Conclusion [ 24 ] I am refusing permission to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 This is a plain-language version of the grounds of appeal. The full text is in section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESDA ). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See Canada ([NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2007  FCA  41; and [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2017  FC  259. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 I have tried to make this error more understandable. This ground of appeal is defined in section 58(1)(c) of the DESDA : The [NAME] will have made an error of fact where it, “based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.” Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 10(4) of the Employment Insurance Act. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See para 12; reference to Canada ([NAME] [NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2010  FCA  336; and Canada ([NAME] [NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2011  FCA  266. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD2-1. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See, for example: [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]), 2015  FC  1300; [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2017  FC  439. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]   v   Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 8 referrer