Canada Case Law

Bennett v. Seto

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The chambers judge did not err: the arbitrator's pointed questioning occurred after the bulk of evidence and was directed to specific, relevant contradictions (Facebook posts) affecting credibility; although some interventions (including a compliance referral remark) were unnecessary, they were not systemic or extensive enough, in context, to create a reasonable apprehension of bias and did not render the process procedurally unfair, so the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Judicial review
• Procedural unfairness
• Compensation under s.51 rta
• Tribunal questioning and interventions

Read case analysis

Yates v. British Columbia

Yates v. British Columbia (Civil Resolution Tribunal)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The interim stay is vacated because the petition is premature given the CRT has not rendered a final decision, the applicant cannot demonstrate irreparable harm (monetary benefits are remediable), and the balance of convenience favors allowing the CRT to proceed; prohibition against adverse inference is premature and improper because such inferences are legally possible and reviewable after a final decision; mandamus is unavailable because the CRT has exercised discretion and has not refused to decide nor acted in bad faith.

Source excerpt

• Judicial review
• Stay of proceedings
• Mandamus
• Prohibition
• Prematurity doctrine
• Adverse inference

Read case analysis

XR v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The General Division made an important error of fact by finding the reconsideration decision was sent by email despite evidence showing the decision was mailed; the Appeal Division therefore substituted the correct decision, found the claimant gave a reasonable explanation for a delay of just over one month (Canada Post strike and personal circumstances), granted additional time to file the notice of appeal, and returned the file to the General Division for hearing on the reconsideration decision.

Source excerpt

• Late filing
• Extension of time
• Error of fact
• Service of decision
• Reconsideration
• Notice of debt

Read case analysis

DH v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Time to file was extended because the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for delay, but permission to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify or explain any arguable General Division error (procedural, jurisdictional, legal, or important factual); the General Division had afforded opportunities and gave rational reasons for its decision, and the Appeal Division will not substitute its view for the General Division or permit a re-argument of the reconsideration decision.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Leave to appeal
• Procedural fairness
• Jurisdictional error
• Appealable errors

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

SA v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The application is refused because the file shows the General Division decision was sent December 2, 2025 (deemed received December 3, 2025), the statutory 30‑day limit expired January 2, 2026, the application was filed March 16, 2026 (73 days late), and the claimant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay; being able to add new evidence or reargue the case is not a proper basis for extending time.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Leave to appeal
• Timeliness
• New evidence on appeal
• Receipt of decision

Read case analysis

QS v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The applicant's request for leave to appeal was filed well beyond the 90‑day limit, he failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay when prompted, and refusing an extension does not produce an injustice; therefore the Appeal Division must refuse an extension and the leave application will not proceed.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Leave to appeal
• Timeliness
• Overpayment
• Oas
• Gis

Read case analysis

X v Canada Employment Insurance Commission and PN

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal was refused because the Employer failed to identify any arguable reviewable error and did not demonstrate a direct interest—the General Division properly exercised its discretion in refusing to add the Employer as a party.

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal
• Added party
• Direct interest
• Misconduct
• Grounds of appeal
• Natural justice

Read case analysis

DM v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The application was 70 days late and the Applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay; additionally there is no arguable case that the General Division made a reviewable error (the General Division properly applied law and was bound by the CRA hours ruling showing 530 hours versus the 700 required), therefore no extension of time is granted and the application will not proceed.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Leave to appeal
• Overpayment
• Hours ruling
• Record of employment (roe)
• Reconsideration

Read case analysis

AH v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal was denied because the claimant failed to particularize the alleged important factual error despite being given an opportunity, and review of the General Division record disclosed no arguable error; therefore the claimant has no reasonable chance of success.

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal
• Overpayment
• Reconsideration
• Factual findings
• Allocation of income
• Procedural fairness

Read case analysis