EB v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

EB v Canada Employment Insurance Commission Collection Employment Insurance (EI) Decision date 2026-03-09 Neutral citation 2026 SST 172 Reference number AD-26-138 Member Solange Losier Division Appeal Division Decision Application for leave to appeal refused Decision Content Citation: EB v Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2026 SST 172 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: E. B. Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated January 27, 2026 (GE-26-192) Tribunal member: Solange Losier Decision date: March 9, 2026 File number: AD-26-138 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [1] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. E. B.’s appeal will not proceed. Overview [2] E. B. is the Claimant. She stopped working on April 30, 2024. Several months later, she applied for Employment Insurance benefits on November 8, 2024.Footnote 1 [3] On June 3, 2025, the Claimant asked the Commission to antedate her application to her last day of work.Footnote 2 [4] On November 24, 2025, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) refused to antedate her application to the earlier date because she hadn’t shown she had good cause for the entire period of delay.Footnote 3 [5] The General Division found that the Claimant’s appeal was late and that she didn’t have a reasonable explanation.Footnote 4 [6] The Claimant is now asking for permission to appeal. She disagrees with the General Division’s decision and it’s unfair she can’t get benefits.Footnote 5 [7] I am denying permission to appeal because the Claimant’s arguments don’t show that she has an arguable case upon which the appeal might succeed. So, I can’t give her permission to appeal.Footnote 6 Issue [8] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made any reviewable errors? Analysis [9] I can consider four types of errors, and they include a failure to follow a fair process, jurisdictional, legal, and important factual errors.Footnote 7 I will refer to these as “reviewable errors.” [10] I can only give the Claimant permission to appeal if there’s an “arguable case” that the General Division made a reviewable error that gives her appeal a reasonable chance of success.Footnote 8 [11] The Claimant set out her reasons for appealing and I have considered them. I’ve also reviewed the General Division decision and the file documents before making my decision. [12] The Claimant hasn’t pointed out what type of errors the General Division made, so I will broadly consider whether the General Division made any reviewable errors. I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal The Claimant’s arguments to the Appeal Division [13] The Claimant disagrees with the General Division decision. She says that she has worked the hours, paid taxes and deserves to get benefits. It is unfair that she can’t get benefits. She is a hard-working professional, and feels she is being penalized.Footnote 9 There is no arguable case that the General Division made any reviewable errors [14] An appeal of a decision must be brought to the General Division 30 days after the day on which it is communicated to the person.Footnote 10 [15] A person who files a notice of appeal after the deadline must explain why they are late. They must file the explanation with the Tribunal.Footnote 11 The Tribunal gives more time to appeal if the person has a reasonable explanation for why they are late.Footnote 12 [16] The General Division found the Commission had communicated its reconsideration decision (i.e., the refusal to antedate her application) to the Claimant on November 24, 2025.Footnote 13 The communication date was undisputed as this was the date the Claimant wrote she got the reconsideration decision.Footnote 14 [17] The General Division noted that the reconsideration decision and her appeal rights had been verbally communicated to her at an earlier date.Footnote 15 [18] The General Division found that she had filed her appeal to the General Division on January 16, 2026.Footnote 16 It decided that her appeal was more than 30 days late.Footnote 17 It then considered whether she had a reasonable explanation for the late appeal.Footnote 18 [19] The General Division concluded that the Claimant hadn’t provided a reasonable explanation, so her appeal could not proceed.Footnote 19 It considered her reason for filing it late, namely that she forgot about the deadline because of a vacation and Christmas, so she didn’t have a moment to sit down and work through it.Footnote 20 It determined that forgetting about a deadline didn’t excuse a late appeal.Footnote 21 [20] There is no arguable case that the General Division made any reviewable errors.Footnote 22 It only decided the issues it had to decide. It correctly stated the law in its decision.Footnote 23 Its key findings about the communication date of the Commission’s reconsideration decision and late appeal were consistent with the evidence. It considered the Claimant’s reasons for filing the appeal late and explained why it wasn’t a reasonable explanation. I also see no indication that it didn’t follow a fair process in some way. [21] I acknowledge the Claimant’s arguments that the General Division’s decision was unfair, that she has worked the hours, paid taxes and deserved to get benefits. The Appeal Division has a limited mandate. I can’t intervene in the General Division’s decision based on a disagreement with the outcome and unfairness in general because that isn’t a reviewable error. I also can’t reweigh the evidence in order to reach a different outcome.Footnote 24 [22] There are no other reasons for giving the Claimant permission to appeal. I’m satisfied that the General Division didn’t misinterpret or fail to consider any relevant evidence.Footnote 25 Conclusion [23] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. It has no reasonable chance of success. Footnotes Footnote 1 See page GD3-12 Footnote 2 See pages GD3-15 to GD3-16. Footnote 3 See pages GD3-18 and GD3-26 and section 10(4) of the Employment Insurance Act (EI Act). Footnote 4 See pages AD1A-1 to AD1A-5. Footnote 5 See pages AD1-1 to AD1-8. Footnote 6 See section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESD Act). Footnote 7 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. Footnote 8 See Osaj v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 11 at paragraph 12 and sections 56(1) and 58(2) of the DESD Act. Footnote 9 This is a summary of the Claimant’s arguments set out at page AD1-5. Footnote 10 See section 52(1)(a) of the DESD Act. Footnote 11 See section 27(1) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure (SST Rules) and section 52(2) of the DESD Act. Footnote 12 See section 17(2) of the SST Rules. Footnote 13 See paragraph 11 of the General Division decision. Footnote 14 See page GD2-8. Footnote 15 See paragraph 19 of the General Division decision. Footnote 16 See paragraph 11 of the General Division decision and section 19(2) of the SST Rules. Footnote 17 See paragraphs 9–12 of the General Division decision. Footnote 18 See section 27(2) of the SST Rules. Footnote 19 See paragraphs 13, 16–18, 21 and 23 of the General Division decision. Footnote 20 See paragraph 14 of the General Division decision and page GD2-12. Footnote 21 See paragraph 17 of the General Division decision. Footnote 22 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. Footnote 23 See paragraphs 4 and 7–8 of the General Division decision. Footnote 24 See Garvey v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 118 at paragraph 11. Footnote 25 See Karadeolian v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 165 at paragraph 10, which recommends doing such a review.