Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Leave to appeal is refused because the applicant failed to establish an arguable case of a reviewable error; the General Division correctly applied s.23(2) EI Act that the parental benefit window ended 52 weeks after birth and no statutory extension applied, and misinformation does not alter statutory entitlement.
Source excerpt
The statutory scheme limits standard parental benefits to the 52‑week period from the week of the child’s birth; the appellant’s additional requested weeks fall outside that period and he does not meet any statutory extension criteria, and therefore the Tribunal must dismiss the appeal despite any incorrect advice from Commission agents.
Source excerpt
The Commission provided no statutory basis to retroactively disentitle the Appellant from maternity and parental benefits based on an expired SIN or lack of immigration status; the claim was properly established for the benefit period beginning November 17, 2024, and entitlement to those benefits in these circumstances is not negated by the expired SIN or by IRCC status issues, so the appeal is allowed and the disentitlement reversed.
Source excerpt
Permission to appeal was refused because there is no arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact; the uncontested evidence showed the Applicant accumulated only 533 hours (below the 600-hour minimum) between benefit periods, so the General Division correctly upheld the Commission's judicial reconsideration and renewal of the first benefit period.
Source excerpt
The Appellant had only 560 insurable hours within the established qualifying period (April 21, 2024 to April 19, 2025), which is insufficient under s.93(1) of the Regulations requiring 600 hours for special benefits; the Tribunal has no discretion to waive this statutory threshold, so the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appellant's benefit period was validly established effective June 23, 2024 and, absent any prescribed statutory circumstance allowing an extension, it must end 52 weeks later on June 21, 2025; benefits are payable only for weeks within that period, the appellant does not qualify for an extension, and precedent establishes that misinformation by Commission staff does not create a statutory entitlement or authorize the Tribunal to order payment beyond the benefit period, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Commission validly reconsidered its earlier decision within its statutory authority and the Appellant failed to prove she met the statutory requirement of 600 insurable hours in the applicable qualifying period (she had 533), therefore she does not qualify for EI maternity or parental benefits and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Recovery of overpaid EI benefits arising from subsequently received employer salary‑insurance payments is authorized by ss.45–46 of the Employment Insurance Act and may be calculated and recovered at any time; such insurer payments are "remuneration" under the EI Regulations and must be allocated to the weeks for which they were paid or payable, validating the Commission’s allocation and recovery in this case.
Source excerpt
Under s.10(6)(b) of the EI Act the Tribunal may cancel the portion of a benefit period immediately before the first week for which benefits were paid or payable where the claimant can establish a new benefit period starting that week and shows good cause for delay; the Appellant met both requirements (had sufficient insurable hours and demonstrated good cause through misadvice and reasonable reliance), therefore the two weeks June 9–22, 2024 may be cancelled and the new benefit period starts June 23, 2024.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal refused because the claimant failed to show any arguable error by the General Division (no unfair procedure, jurisdictional, legal or important factual error); the General Division's decision is supported by law and evidence; only the Commission has authority to write off overpayments, and the claimant may apply to the Commission under statutory provisions including for claim processing error or undue hardship.
Source excerpt
Explore more
