AS v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

AS v Canada Employment Insurance Commission Collection Employment Insurance (EI) Decision date 2026-01-15 Neutral citation 2026 SST 18 Reference number AD-26-34 Member Stephen Bergen Division Appeal Division Decision Application for leave to appeal refused Related decisions SST - AS v Canada Employment Insurance Commission - 2026 SST 19 - 2026-01-05 - General Division Decision Content Citation: AS v Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2026 SST 18 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: A. S. Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated January 5, 2026 (GE-25-3376) Tribunal member: Stephen Bergen Decision date: January 15, 2026 File number: AD-26-34 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] A. S. 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 Claimant left Canada on three different occasions during a period in which she was collecting EI benefits. During each absence she continued to complete and file claim reports, indicating that she was available for work and had not been outside Canada. [4] The Commission discovered that the Claimant had been outside of Canada and decided her that she was not entitled to the benefits she received during those absences. It informed her that she would have to pay back these benefits. [5] The Commission also gave the Claimant a notice of violation and imposed a monetary penalty of $4,147.00. This was because the Claimant made seven statements on her claim reports that she had not been outside of Canada, when she would have known those statements were false. [6] The Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider. The Commission decided that the Claimant was available for work while outside of Canada, and that she was entitled to certain limited benefits because of the reasons for her trips. It accepted that she was entitled to one week of benefits because the Claimant’s first trip to the United States was to attend a bona fide job interview. It also accepted she should receive another week of benefits because she visited a critically ill family member on the second trip. Finally, it accepted that she was entitled to a week of benefits for her third trip because she had another job interview in the US. Outside of those three weeks, the Commission found that the Claimant should not have received benefits while outside of Canada. [7] The Commission also corrected its calculations and reduced the penalty to $3,509.00. [8] The Claimant was not satisfied with these changes and she appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). The General Division scheduled a teleconference hearing for December 30, 2025, but the Claimant did not join the call. The General Division made a decision on the appeal without hearing from the Claimant. [9] The Claimant is asking the Appeal Division for permission to appeal because she does not feel that it was fair that the hearing went ahead in her absence. [10] I am refusing leave to appeal. The Geneal Division process did not treat the Claimant unfairly. Issue [11] Is there an arguable case that the General Division acted unfairly by proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the Claimant? I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal [12] For the Claimant’s 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. [13] I may consider only the following errors: a) The General Division hearing process was not fair in some way. b) The General Division 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 General Division based its decision on an important error of fact. d) The General Division made an error of law when making its decision.Footnote 1 [14] 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 Procedural fairness [15] “Procedural fairness” is concerned with the fairness of the process. Parties before the General Division have a right to be heard and to know the case against them, and the right to an unbiased decision-maker. [16] The Claimant argued that she did not have a chance to be heard because the General Division held the hearing in her absence. She says that she could not attend the hearing because she had the flu. [17] There is no arguable case that the General Division acted unfairly. [18] The Claimant granted the Tribunal permission to communicate with her by email in her notice of appeal. The Tribunal sent an email notice of hearing to the Claimant on December 22, 2025. It sent the notice to the email address that the Claimant provided in her Notice of Appeal. The General Division followed up on December 23, 2025, with a telephone call. It left a voice mail message asking the Claimant to confirm she received the notice of hearing and that she would attend. [19] After waiting for the Claimant to join the hearing at the scheduled time on December 30, the General Division member asked Tribunal registry staff to call the Claimant and assist her to join the teleconference. Registry staff left a message for the Claimant to join the hearing as soon as possible. The Claimant did not join the call, so the member closed the oral hearing. She made a decision based on the information already on the record. [20] The General Division noted that the Claimant emailed the Tribunal on December 31 to say she missed the hearing because she had been too ill to attend, and to apologize. The Claimant also asked to have the hearing rescheduled. The General Division member interpreted her capacity to write the Tribunal on December 31 as evidence that she could likely have asked for an adjournment prior to December 30. [21] The day after the Tribunal sent the Claimant its decision, she called the Tribunal and repeated her request to have the hearing rescheduled. She confirmed that she knew about the December 30 hearing but that she had been sick with the flu. [22] As the General Division noted, the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure (Rules) state that a party is deemed, or presumed, to have received an email from the Tribunal on the next business day (after the email), so the Tribunal may presume that the Claimant received the notice of hearing on December 24. The Rules also say that the Tribunal may proceed with an oral hearing in the absence of a party if it is satisfied that the party had notice.Footnote 3 The General Division was satisfied that the Claimant had notice. So the member was authorized to proceed by the Rules. [23] In addition, the Tribunal tried to confirm the Claimant’s attendance by calling her at the phone number she provided. It did so on the day prior to the hearing and again, at the time scheduled for the hearing. The Tribunal could only leave a message. The Rules authorize it to continue the appeal process if it cannot reach a party using the contact information given by the party.Footnote 4 [24] There is no arguable case that the General Division acted unfairly by deciding the appeal on the record. The General Division acted in accordance with the authority give it by the Rules. It is not the Tribunal’s fault that the Claimant missed her chance to testify. The Claimant could have asked for an adjournment ahead of time, or even joined the hearing call to say she could not participate at that time. Or she could have asked someone else to make the request on her behalf. Conclusion [25] 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). Footnote 2 See Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v Hogervorst, 2007 FCA 41; and Ingram v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FC 259. Footnote 3 See section 58 of the Rules. Footnote 4 See section 9(2) of the Rules.