Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. The appeal will not proceed.

Overview

[2] C. S. is the Claimant in this case. He applied for Employment Insurance regular benefits (EI benefits) and established a benefit period in December 2019. But he only ended up claiming and collecting EI benefits for a few weeks in July 2020.

[3] Around the same time, he was getting benefits from Canada Revenue Agency—Canada Emergency Response Benefits (CRA CERB), so he didn’t claim EI benefits because he didn’t want to “double-dip.” However, he ended up finding out later from CRA that he wasn’t entitled to get CERB benefits. Because of that, he called the Commission on August 19, 2024, to ask them to antedate his EI claims back to March 22, 2020. ^{Footnote 1}

[4] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that he didn’t have good cause to antedate his claims to March 22, 2020.^{Footnote 2}

[5] The General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal. It found that he hadn’t shown good cause for the entire period of delay, so his claims couldn’t be antedated to the earlier date.^{Footnote 3}

[6] The Claimant is now asking for permission to appeal.^{Footnote 4} He argues that the General Division made an important error of fact because all of the information was not taken into account and he is being treated unfairly.^{Footnote 5}

[7] I am denying permission to appeal because it has no reasonable chance of success.

Issue

[8] Is there an arguable case that the General Division ignored relevant evidence when it decided the antedate issue?

Analysis

[9] An appeal can proceed only if the Appeal Division gives permission to appeal.^{Footnote 6} I must be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 7} This means that there must be some arguable ground that the appeal might succeed.^{Footnote 8}

[10] I can only consider certain types of errors. I have to focus on whether the General Division could have made one or more of the relevant errors (this is called the “grounds of appeal”).

[11] The possible grounds of appeal to the Appeal Division are that the General Division did one of the following:^{Footnote 9}

• didn’t follow a fair process
• acted beyond its powers or refused to exercise those powers
• made an error in law
• based its decision on an important error of fact.

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

[12] The Claimant argues that the General Division made an important error of fact because he says not all of the information was taken into account and he is being treated unfairly.^{Footnote 10}

[13] The Claimant hasn’t really pointed out exactly what information was not taken into account by the General Division. Even so, I reviewed the file in detail, the General Division decision and listened to the audio recording of the General Division hearing.

[14] The General Division had to decide whether the Claimant had good cause for the entire period of delay in claiming EI benefits.

[15] The Employment Insurance Act (EI Act) allows a claimant to antedate a claim for benefits if the claimant can show good cause for the delay throughout the period of the delay. ^{Footnote 11}

[16] The Federal Court of Appeal says that a person has to show that they acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have done in similar circumstances throughout the entire period of delay.^{Footnote 12} Barring exceptional circumstances, a person has to show that they took reasonably prompt steps to understand their entitlement to benefits and obligations under the EI Act.^{Footnote 13}

[17] The General Division found that the Claimant made his first call to Service Canada on August 19, 2024.^{Footnote 14} This is consistent with the evidence on file which shows that he asked the Commission to antedate his claim to March 22, 2020.^{Footnote 15}

[18] The General Division decided that the period of delay in this case ran from March 22, 2020, to August 19, 2024.^{Footnote 16}

[19] The General Division considered the Claimant’s reasons for the delay, including that he was getting benefits from CERB benefits from CRA and didn’t want to double-dip by getting EI benefits at the same time.^{Footnote 17} Its decision also shows that it was aware that CRA told him in 2023 that he wasn’t entitled to the CERB benefits he got. It noted that he asked the CRA for a “third review” in early 2024, and got an answer from them on May 9, 2024.^{Footnote 18}

[20] The General Division identified that he didn’t have good cause for the delay for the period from March 22, 2020, to July 19, 2020. It explained he received EI benefits for the weeks of July 19, 2020, and July 26, 2020. And it found that nothing prevented him from making claims for EI benefits from March 22, 2020.^{Footnote 19}

[21] However, it accepted that “in 2020” [during the Covid19 pandemic] there was some confusion about one’s eligibility for benefits and that sometimes it was difficult for people to get information due to high demand. It found these circumstances were exceptional, but noted that they only explain part of the Claimant’s delay, not all of it. ^{Footnote 20}

[22] The General Division ultimately decided that he didn’t have good cause for the entire period of delay because he didn’t take reasonably prompt steps to determine his entitlement to EI benefits after learning the outcome of the third review from CRA in May 2024.

[23] It found that a reasonable and prudent person would have contacted Service Canada about his entitlement sooner than he did. It explained that he could have contacted Service Canada in 2023, when he first learned that he was not eligible for the CERB benefits that CRA paid him.^{Footnote 21} It concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances to explain the entire delay period.^{Footnote 22}

[24] The General Division is the fact finder and it was free to weigh the evidence. So, I can’t intervene in the General Division’s conclusion where it applies settled law to the facts.^{Footnote 23} This means I can’t conduct a rehearing and reweigh the evidence in order to reach a different outcome for the Claimant.^{Footnote 24}

[25] I am satisfied that the General Division didn’t misinterpret or fail to consider any relevant evidence.^{Footnote 25} Its key findings were consistent with the evidence in the record. It considered all of the information and reasons he presented, but found that he didn’t have good cause (or exceptional circumstances) for the entire period of delay.

[26] The Appeal Division’s mandate is limited to deciding whether the General Division might have made a reviewable error and not whether the result was unfair.^{Footnote 26}

[27] Respectfully, I acknowledge that the Claimant might be dissatisfied with the General Division’s decision and find it unfair, but a disagreement with the outcome isn’t enough for me to intervene.

[28] There is no arguable case that the General Division based its decision on an important error of fact.^{Footnote 27} It didn’t ignore any relevant evidence. Also, it stated the correct law and various case law in its decision.^{Footnote 28}

Conclusion

[29] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the Claimant’s appeal will not proceed. It has no reasonable chance of success.