SST Extends Time for EI Appeal, Denies Leave

OUTCOME: Refused

Citation: DH  v  Canada [NAME] Commission , 2026  SST  266 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] decision dated February 10, 2026 (GE-26-179) Tribunal member: [NAME] date: March 27, 2026 File number: AD-26-274 On this page Decision Overview Issues I’m extending the time for the Claimant to file his application I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I’m extending the time for [APPELLANT]. to apply the Appeal Division. [ 2 ] But I’m refusing leave (permission) to appeal the [NAME] decision. This means his appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 3 ] [APPELLANT]. is the Claimant in this case. He has applied for permission to appeal a [NAME] decision. [ 4 ] The [NAME] refused to consider his appeal because it found he filed it late, but he didn’t meet the legal test to get an extension of time. Footnote 1 [ 5 ] The Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division was late. But I’ve extended the time for him to file it. [ 6 ] Unfortunately for the Claimant, he hasn’t shown an arguable case the [NAME] made an error. This means I can’t give him permission to appeal. Issues [ 7 ] I will decide two issues. The Claimant recognizes his application to the Appeal Division is late. Can I extend the time for him to file it? Does his appeal have a reasonable chance of success? I’m extending the time for the Claimant to file his application [ 8 ] The law gave the Claimant 30 days to file his application to the Appeal Division (application). Footnote 2 [ 9 ] He admits his application is late. He says he received the [NAME] decision on February 10, 2026. Footnote 3 The Appeal Division received his application on March 25, 2026. I know this from the date stamp on the bottom of each page of his application. And I have no reason to doubt that date. [ 10 ] I can extend the time for the Claimant to file his application if he gives a reasonable explanation for his delay. Footnote 4 This is how he explains his delay: Personal issues: career, intimate relationship(s), financial burdens, illness. [ 11 ] I find this is a reasonable explanation. I accept that he was dealing with many stressful life events at the same time. So I’m extending the time for him to file his application to March 25, 2026—the day the Appeal Division received it. I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal The permission to appeal test screens out appeals without a reasonable chance of success Footnote 5 [ 12 ] The Claimant has applied for permission to appeal. I give permission when there’s an arguable case the [NAME] made an error that gives a claimant a reasonable chance of winning their appeal. Footnote 6 [ 13 ] The law says I can consider four types of errors—the [NAME] used an unfair procedure, or made a jurisdictional error, a legal error, or an important factual error. Footnote 7 The [APPELLANT] appeal doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success [ 14 ] On his application form, the Claimant checked the box that says the [NAME] made an important error of fact. Footnote 8 [ 15 ] But when I read his explanation of his reasons for appealing, he doesn’t refer to or explain a [NAME] error. When he refers to the [NAME] decision, he writes: On February 9, 2026, [NAME] came to the decision that I did not respond to his correspondence in a reasonable time frame and therefore did not allow the appeal to proceed further. He outlined his decision very clearly and honestly provided me with a considerable amount of time, even considering numerous delays caused by postal service disruptions. [ 16 ] Then he explains he’s overwhelmed and struggling with numerous personal ordeals and dilemmas. He sets out his case challenging the Commission’s reconsideration decision. He says he has come to realize he might not be able to sufficiently represent himself. And asks for a phone call to discuss his application. [ 17 ] The Claimant’s reasons for appeal don’t show an arguable case the [NAME] made an error in its process or its decision. [ 18 ] Because he’s representing himself, I reviewed the documents in the [NAME] file and the applicable law. Footnote 9 Then compared that with the [NAME] decision. [ 19 ] I didn’t find an arguable case the [NAME] used an unfair process. It gave the [APPELLANT] two opportunities—on his appeal form and in response to a detailed letter—to give a reasonable explanation for appealing late. Footnote 10 The [NAME] decided his explanation wasn’t reasonable, and gave clear and logical reasons for that finding. I didn’t find an arguable case the [NAME] reached its decision by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. And there isn’t an arguable case the [NAME] used the incorrect legal tests, or misinterpreted those tests, to reject the [APPELLANT] appeal. [ 20 ] It might seem inconsistent that I extended the time for the [APPELLANT] to file his application because he gave a reasonable explanation for his delay. Yet the [NAME] didn’t extend the time for him to file his appeal. He gave different explanations to the [NAME] versus the Appeal Division. I can’t interfere with the [NAME] decision based on the explanation he gave the Appeal Division. That explanation—or difference between his explanations—doesn’t show an arguable case the [NAME] made an error the law lets me consider. [ 21 ] I appreciate the Claimant is facing challenging circumstances. The Federal Court of Appeal has recognized 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 11 The Appeal Division application process isn’t a do-over, a chance to reargue a [NAME] case, or the time to challenge a Commission reconsideration decision. Conclusion [ 22 ] Permission to appeal denied. So, the appeal won’t go forward. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 52(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD  Act) and section 27(2) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure ( SST  Rules). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 57(1)(a) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See AD1-3. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 57(2) the DESD  Act and section 27(2) of the SST  Rules. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 58(2) of the DESD  Act; [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2016  FC  1282 at paragraph 32. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 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 See AD1-6. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See GD2, GD3, GD4, and [NAME]. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See the letter the [NAME] sent the Claimant at [NAME]. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2022  FCA  29 at paragraph 8. Return to footnote 11 referrer