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
The application for extension of time is refused because the General Division decision was communicated Feb 27, 2026 with a 30-day appeal period, the applicant filed on April 16, 2026 after that period and after contacting the Tribunal only on April 2, 2026, and the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation to justify the delay.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the applications for judicial review because the CIRB reasonably concluded the complaints were filed outside the 90‑day statutory period, the dates the applicant ought to have known of the causes (Dec 14, 2022 for the CBC complaint; Mar 17, 2023 for the Union complaint) were supported by the record, and the applicant never sought an extension under paragraph 16(m.1) of the Code or otherwise established exceptional circumstances warranting intervention under the Vavilov reasonableness standard.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that a cross-appeal from an arbitral award is subject to the Arbitration Act’s 30-day leave deadline and quashed TDMC’s late application.
The General Division erred by (1) counting the 36‑month reconsideration period from the Commission decision letter rather than the notice of debt and (2) treating the EI ERB as a weekly rather than a two‑week benefit; counting from the notice of debt excludes two weeks of benefits from reconsideration and, because the Commission failed to prove the 72‑month exception, the correct remedy is to reduce the Claimant’s overpayment by two weeks ($1,000).
Source excerpt
Because the appeal was filed more than one year after the Minister told the Estate about the reconsideration decision, the Tribunal had no statutory authority under s.52(2) of the DESD Act to accept the late appeal, so the appeal cannot proceed.
Source excerpt
Although the Minister failed to demonstrate it considered all relevant information and thus did not exercise its discretion judicially, the Tribunal, after independently assessing the four statutory factors, concluded the Appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the long delay and that granting more time would unfairly prejudice the Added Party; therefore no extension of time was justified and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Because the applicant filed the application for leave to appeal more than one year after the General Division decision was communicated and s.57(2) DESD Act precludes bringing such an application after one year, the Appeal Division must refuse the application and cannot grant an extension of time.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was refused because there was no arguable case of procedural unfairness: the claimant received the file documents before the General Division hearing and confirmed receipt; the General Division accepted the claimant’s account of when she was notified (September 2024) and properly found the Commission exercised its discretion judicially in refusing reconsideration, leaving no reasonable chance of success on appeal.
Source excerpt
The Commission validly relied on the second ROE and law to conclude the Appellant made a false statement in his application, giving it 72 months to reconsider; it exercised its discretion judicially by applying policy and relevant facts; and the Appellant did not have the required interruption of earnings (no seven consecutive days without work or earnings and was not laid off), so he did not qualify for EI benefits, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal found the Commission communicated the reconsideration decision verbally on January 16, 2024 and in writing by January 31, 2024; the appeal was received February 28, 2025 (394 days later), which exceeds the one-year limit in subsection 52(2) DESD Act, therefore the appeal is out of time and the extension of time is refused.
Source excerpt
Explore more
