AS v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

AS v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Commission exceeded its authority because it did not complete a judicial reconsideration within the applicable 36-month limitation (72 months not available because there was no knowing false statement), it failed to act judicially in reopening a closed claim where benefits had already been paid, the Appellant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2024 SST 1369
Parties
Appellant: A. S.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / General Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; debt cancelled; Appellant not disqualified or disentitled and may be entitled to benefits
Legal Topics
Availability for Work While in School, Voluntary Leaving/just Cause, Earnings Allocation, Reconsideration/jurisdiction, Overpayment/debt
Source Language
english
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Availability for Work While in School Voluntary Leaving/just Cause Earnings Allocation Reconsideration/jurisdiction Overpayment/debt

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. S.

Appellant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / General Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Commission have authority/timeframe to review the claim?
  2. 2 Did the Commission act judicially in exercising its discretion?
  3. 3 Did the Appellant voluntarily leave employment without just cause?

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission exceeded its authority because it did not complete a judicial reconsideration within the applicable 36-month limitation (72 months not available because there was no knowing false statement), it failed to act judicially in reopening a closed claim where benefits had already been paid, the Appellant did not voluntarily quit and rebutted the presumption of non-availability while in full-time school (regulation 146/20 limited suitable work), therefore the imposed disqualification/disentitlement and resulting $14,726 debt are cancelled.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; debt cancelled; Appellant not disqualified or disentitled and may be entitled to benefits

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Notice of debt in the amount of $14,726 cancelled