Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] I am refusing leave (permission) to appeal. The appeal will not proceed.

Overview

[2] D. C. is the Applicant. He made a claim for the Employment Insurance Emergency Response Benefit (ERB), so I will call him the Claimant. Under the ERB program, claimants were entitled to a $500.00 weekly benefit if they met the requirements. To get benefits to claimant’s quickly, the Respondent, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission), immediately prepaid or advanced $2000.00 to claimants. It expected to recover the $2000.00 advance by withholding the weekly benefit for certain weeks later in the claim.

[3] The Claimant received 10 weeks of benefits for the 10-week period from April 26, 2020, to July 4, 2020. He also received the $2000.00 advance. However, he returned to work just before July 1, 2020. This meant that he stopped claiming the ERB benefit before the Commission had a chance to recover the advance. The Commission sent the Claimant a Notice of Debt to recover the advance from the Claimant.

[4] The Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider its decision because he did not believe that he should have to repay the advance. The Commission would not change its decision, so the Claimant appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal. The General Division dismissed his appeal. He is now asking the Appeal Division for leave to appeal.

[5] I am refusing leave to appeal. The Claimant has not made out an arguable case that the General Division made an error.

Issues

[6] The issues in this application are:

1. a) Is there an arguable case that the General Division acted unfairly?
2. b) Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error of law?

I am not granting leave to appeal

[7] In his application to the Appeal Division, the Claimant did not select any of the grounds of appeal that I may consider. In fact, he stated that he is not arguing that the General Division made an error.^{Footnote 1} The Claimant believes that the Commission’s administration of the ERB program is inconsistent with its objectives of alleviating financial hardship and supporting claimants’ efforts to re-engage with the workforce.

[8] The remedy sought by the Claimant appears to be political. The General Division did not have the power to amend the law, or to direct the Commission in its administration of legislative objectives. I do not have that power either.

Fairness

[9] I recognize that the Claimant feels that he is being treated unfairly by the Commission’s demand for repayment, and by the General Division decision upholding that demand.

[10] However, I can not intervene because the Claimant feels the decision result was unfair. I can only consider whether the General Division process was unfair.

[11] The Claimant has not suggested that the General Division acted in a way that affected the Claimant’s right to be heard or to know the case against him. Nor has he suggested that the General Division member was biased or had prejudged his case.

[12] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of procedural fairness.

Error of law

[13] The Claimant has not specifically argued that the General Division made an error of law. However, the Claimant does not accept that the Commission was required to recover the advance, which was upheld at the General Division.

[14] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of law by finding that the Claimant must repay the $2000.00 advance.

[15] The law then in effect said that the Commission could pay ERB benefits in advance of the customary time for paying it.^{Footnote 2} However, this did not mean that a Claimant could receive benefits for which they were ineligible.

[16] The Commission was only authorized by the legislation to pay benefits for those weeks in which claimants were eligible for those benefits. The Claimant was eligible for benefits for the 10 weeks between April 26, 2020, to July 4, 2020. ^{Footnote 3} However, the Claimant was actually paid a total of 14 weeks of benefits, once the $2000.00 advance is factored in.

[17] In other words, the Claimant received four weeks of ERB benefits for which he was ineligible. This meant that he was overpaid. The law says that a claimant must repay amounts to which they were not entitled.^{Footnote 4}

Conclusion

[18] I am refusing leave to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed.

[19] As the General Division noted, the Claimant may still ask the Commission to reduce or write-off his overpayment debt (if he has not done so already).^{Footnote 5}