Canada Case Law

Musani v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Appeal Division's decision was reasonable: the Court refused to consider Charter arguments raised for the first time on judicial review; the applicant failed to prove good cause under s.10(4) EI Act for the entire period of delay such that antedating to May 22, 2022 was warranted, and even allowing a limited antedate to August 2023 would not produce sufficient insurable hours to qualify; therefore the application is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Antedating of ei claims
• Good cause
• Standard of review
• Procedural fairness
• Charter issues raised late

Read case analysis

Canada (Attorney General) v. Zoladkowski

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Appeal Division reasonably concluded the General Division erred: incarceration or house arrest alone does not establish misconduct for EI purposes absent evidence that the claimant's underlying conduct was wilful, deliberate or so reckless as to approach wilfulness; the Commission failed to meet its burden to prove such conduct, therefore the Attorney General's application for judicial review is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct disentitling to ei benefits
• Standard of review (reasonableness)
• Appeal division intervention grounds
• Burden of proof on commission

Read case analysis

Bousquet c. Canada (Procureur Général)

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The lump-sum payment comprising $58,436 for lost wages and $10,708 interest constitutes a retirement allowance and interest includable in income in 2017 under the Income Tax Act; consequently, for Old Age Security/GIS purposes the income for 2017 includes these amounts and the Tax Court/Cour canadienne de l'impôt did not err; the Federal Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to decide or harmonize tax or employment insurance consequences because the appellant only appealed under the Old Age Security Act; the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Old age security (oas)
• Guaranteed income supplement (gis)
• Income characterization
• Retirement allowance
• Statutory interpretation
• Jurisdiction

Read case analysis

Pagano v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of an SST Appeal Division decision denying EI benefits after non-compliance with Air Canada’s COVID-19 vaccination policy.

• Misconduct
• Just cause
• Reasonable decision review
• Vaccination policy
• Religious accommodation
• Procedural fairness

Read case analysis

MH v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Permission to appeal was refused because the Applicant failed to raise an arguable case that the General Division erred in finding a common-law relationship and failed to submit any new evidence to the Appeal Division; a file review confirmed no arguable error.

Source excerpt

• Old age security (oas)
• Guaranteed income supplement (gis)
• Common-law relationship determination
• Overpayment recovery
• Leave to appeal/permission to appeal

Read case analysis

Knauth v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a refusal to write off an EI sickness-benefits overpayment, holding the statutory write-off provisions did not apply.

• Overpayment recovery
• Debt write-off
• Reasonableness review
• Interpretation of s.56 of the employment insurance regulations
• Employment-insurance
• Judicial-review

Read case analysis

RB v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant failed to show an arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact; the General Division’s finding that the claimant did not demonstrate good cause for the delay was supported by the evidence and not ignored or misunderstood, and disagreement with how evidence was weighed is not a proper ground for leave.

Source excerpt

• Antedating a claim
• Good cause for delay
• Leave to appeal
• Important error of fact
• Grounds of appeal

Read case analysis

MH v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Claimant failed to prove a severe and prolonged disability during the narrow MQP (Jan 1–Feb 29, 1988); objective medical evidence from that period is absent, later medical opinion was unreliable on the critical timing, and extensive post-1988 work activity (including multi-year seasonal full-time work with satisfactory performance and EI receipts) demonstrates residual work capacity inconsistent with a continuous severe disability since 1988, therefore appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Disability pension
• Minimum qualifying period (mqp)
• Onset of disability
• Severity and prolongation
• Work capacity
• Evidence and credibility

Read case analysis

EM v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay: evidence showed the June 17, 2025 registered mail was addressed to Service Canada (wrong address) not the Social Security Tribunal, the applicant made no follow-up for seven months, and the proposed appeal did not raise new evidence or identifiable legal errors; therefore interests of justice did not require granting an extension.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Leave to appeal
• Canada pension plan
• Limitation periods
• Procedural requirements

Read case analysis

VB v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant failed to raise any arguable ground that the General Division erred in law, breached procedural fairness, exceeded jurisdiction, or made a reviewable factual error; the General Division properly applied the test for judicial exercise of discretion, considered mitigating circumstances and reduced the penalty, and the Appeal Division cannot consider new evidence not before the General Division, so the appeal has no reasonable chance of success.

Source excerpt

• Employment insurance
• Overpayment
• Penalty for false statements
• Availability for work
• Voluntary leaving
• Mitigating circumstances

Read case analysis