Canada Case Law

ZM v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal denied because the claimant failed to show an arguable case that the General Division committed a procedural, legal, or important factual error that could change the outcome; non‑production of the Commission's native workbook did not deprive the claimant of the ability to know or meet the case and the General Division properly applied the law and corrected the Commission's errors.

Source excerpt

• Ei overpayment calculations
• Disclosure obligations and evidentiary duties
• Leave to appeal test under desd act s58
• Allocation of weekly earnings

Read case analysis

Ryan Richards v. Correctional Service Canada

Court

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

The Tribunal dismissed CSC’s motion to dismiss, found Mr. Richards’ non-compliance with prior orders was an abuse of process, and ordered a signed compliance statement.

• Abuse of process
• Implied undertaking rule (confidential disclosure)
• Dismissal of complaints
• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Confidentiality orders
• Right to counsel

Read case analysis

SD v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal refused because the claimant failed to show an arguable case: the General Division considered the family letter and testimony, did not exceed its jurisdiction, and its central factual finding—that the claimant had a reasonable alternative to leaving—was supported by the evidence (no urgent need to return and arranged employment occurred after resigning).

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal
• Voluntary leaving/quit
• Just cause
• Procedural fairness
• Error of fact
• Jurisdiction

Read case analysis

Canada Employment Insurance Commission v EL

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The General Division erred in fact by accepting that the claimant did not appreciate his separation for the entire delay period and erred in law by treating waiting for a ROE as good cause; a reasonable person who understood they were being laid off would have promptly inquired with the Commission rather than wait additional months for a ROE, so the antedate to October 8, 2023 cannot be granted.

Source excerpt

• Antedating initial claim
• Good cause for delay
• Record of employment (roe)
• Error of law
• Error of fact
• Remedy

Read case analysis

HM v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal was refused because the General Division addressed the medical evidence, correctly concluded the claimant was not available for work and was outside Canada, and the claimant did not meet the interruption-of-earnings or waiting-period requirements, so there is no arguable case of a qualifying jurisdictional, legal, procedural or factual error.

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal
• Availability for work
• Outside canada
• Sickness benefits
• Interruption of earnings
• Waiting period

Read case analysis

JC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission and X

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Although the General Division erred by failing to meaningfully analyze certain evidence, the Appeal Division substituted its own decision on the complete record and found that the Claimant willfully refused to leave after being verbally suspended for attending without a medical note; that conduct amounted to misconduct under the EI Act and disqualified him from benefits.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Bias
• Error of law
• Evidence analysis
• Remedy - substitution

Read case analysis

MO v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Although the appellant's request was filed after the 90-day statutory period, she provided a reasonable explanation (reliance on insurer/case worker, administrative/consent delays, medication-related cognitive impairment and hospitalizations) and demonstrated continuing intention by sending the decision to her insurer within the 90 days; the Minister applied an incorrect, stricter 'exceptional circumstances' test and therefore failed to exercise discretion judicially, so the Tribunal allows the appeal and directs the Minister to reconsider its September 28, 2022 decision.

Source excerpt

• Late request for reconsideration
• Discretionary refusal
• Canada pension plan
• Continuing intention
• Reasonable explanation

Read case analysis

SW v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Permission to appeal was refused because the applicant did not present an arguable case: the General Division applied the correct test for backdating under the EI Act, its factual findings (late and incomplete reports, language barriers, attempts to seek help, and eventual filing dates) were supported by the evidence, and there was no jurisdictional, legal or perverse/capricious factual error to justify appeal.

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal
• Backdating (antedating) of ei claim
• Good cause for delay
• Jurisdictional error
• Perverse or capricious factual error

Read case analysis

JS v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The Appeal Division held that the General Division misinterpreted s.10(4) of the Employment Insurance Act by refusing to consider whether the claim could be antedated to May 21, 2023 despite finding good cause from that date, and that the General Division also failed to meaningfully analyze contradictory evidence about the Claimant's mental health and conduct; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the General Division for reconsideration.

Source excerpt

• Backdating (antedating) initial claim
• Good cause for delay
• Error of law - statutory interpretation
• Failure to meaningfully analyze evidence
• Remand for reconsideration

Read case analysis

SP v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal is refused because the Appeal Division found no arguable reviewable error: the General Division correctly determined the qualifying period (including a seven‑week extension), correctly counted 458 insurable hours, and correctly applied the law requiring 600 hours, so there is no reasonable chance that an appeal would succeed.

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal
• Qualifying for benefits
• Hours of insurable employment
• Procedural fairness

Read case analysis