MD and JD v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

MD and JD v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Commission unlawfully exercised its discretion under s.52 by failing to apply its DBEP guidelines, not providing reasons, ignoring mitigating circumstances and prior reviews of the Appellants' situation of which it was aware, and acting arbitrarily and in bad faith; therefore its retroactive reconsiderations were unjustified and the resulting overpayments must be written off.

Citation
2020 SST 1163
Parties
Appellant: M. D.; Appellant: J. D.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / General Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Commission's retroactive reconsiderations unwarranted and associated overpayments written off
Legal Topics
Reconsideration Under S.52, Overpayment Recovery, Unemployment Status, Discretionary Authority
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Reconsideration Under S.52 Overpayment Recovery Unemployment Status Discretionary Authority

Case Brief

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. D.

Appellant

J. D.

Appellant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / General Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Commission have authority to retroactively review the Appellants' files under section 52 of the Employment Insurance Act?
  2. 2 If so, from what date and until when could it act retroactively?
  3. 3 Were the Appellants unemployed under sections 9 and 11 of the Employment Insurance Act and section 30 of the Employment Insurance Regulations for the benefit periods at issue?

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission unlawfully exercised its discretion under s.52 by failing to apply its DBEP guidelines, not providing reasons, ignoring mitigating circumstances and prior reviews of the Appellants' situation of which it was aware, and acting arbitrarily and in bad faith; therefore its retroactive reconsiderations were unjustified and the resulting overpayments must be written off.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Commission's retroactive reconsiderations unwarranted and associated overpayments written off

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Commission's decisions to retroactively reconsider the Appellants' benefit claims are set aside