Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] D. C. is the Claimant. He applied for and received Employment Insurance regular benefits (benefits). A benefit period was established in March 2015.

[3] On June 1, 2017, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that the Claimant had received earnings during his benefit period and determined that he knowingly made six false representations.^{Footnote 1} This resulted in a notice of debt for the overpayment of benefits.^{Footnote 2}

[4] A few years later, the Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider its decision.^{Footnote 3} On May 29, 2023, the Commission refused to reconsider its decision because more than 30 days had passed since the decision was communicated to him.^{Footnote 4}

[5] The Claimant then appealed that decision to the General Division on February 10, 2025.^{Footnote 5}

[6] The General Division concluded that the Claimant hadn’t brought his appeal in time because it was more than one year from when the Commission’s reconsideration decision was communicated to him. As a result, it determined that his appeal could not proceed.^{Footnote 6}

[7] The Claimant is now asking the Appeal Division for permission to appeal.^{Footnote 7} He needs permission for the appeal to move forward.

[8] I am denying the Claimant’s request for permission to appeal because it has no reasonable chance of success.

Issue

[9] Is there an arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process?

Analysis

The test for getting permission to appeal

[10] An appeal can only proceed if the Appeal Division gives permission to appeal.^{Footnote 8} I must be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 9} This means that there must be some “arguable ground” that the appeal might succeed.^{Footnote 10}

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

• proceeded in a way that was unfair
• acted beyond its powers or refused to exercise those powers
• made an error in law
• based its decision on an important error of fact.

[12] The Claimant argues that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process, so that’s what I will focus on.^{Footnote 12}

The Claimant argues that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process

[13] Procedural fairness” is about the fairness of the process. It includes procedural protections including the right to an unbiased decision-maker, the right of a party to be heard and to know the case against them and to be given an opportunity to respond. If the General Division proceeded in a manner that was unfair, then I can intervene.^{Footnote 13}

[14] The Claimant argues that this has been a long-term battle, and his reasons continue to be ignored. He says there should have been verbal communication to discuss the problem, but there was zero communication after selecting that request in the first form. He also says there should be an investigation, similar to law enforcement. For these reasons, he says that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process.^{Footnote 14}

[15] I think the Claimant might be arguing that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process because he didn’t get a chance to have an oral hearing to present his case. He is also saying that there should have been an investigation into what happened.

[16] The Claimant’s appeal forms to the General Division show that he requested a videoconference or an in-person hearing.^{Footnote 15} The Social Security Tribunal Regulations (SST Regulations) require that the Tribunal follow the format of hearing that a party is asking for.^{Footnote 16} There are some exceptions.^{Footnote 17}

[17] There was no oral hearing held by the General Division because the decision was made in writing. Even so, there is no arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process by not following the Claimant’s preference for an oral hearing. Let me explain why.

[18] The law says that a person has to appeal the Commission’s reconsideration decision no more than 30 days after the Commission has communicated its decision to them.^{Footnote 18} If they file their appeal with the General Division after 30 days, it’s considered late. The Commission has to show that its decision was communicated to the person.

[19] When an appeal is filed late, the General Division can extend the time if the person gives a reasonable explanation for filing late.^{Footnote 19} However, in no case may an appeal be brought more than one year after the day on which it was communicated to them.^{Footnote 20}

[20] The Commission’s reconsideration decision (dated May 29, 2023) shows that it refused to reconsider its decision because more than 30 days had passed since the decision was communicated to the Claimant.^{Footnote 21}

[21] The only issue under appeal and before the General Division was whether the Claimant had brought his appeal more than one year after the Commission’s reconsideration decision was communicated to him.^{Footnote 22}

[22] The General Division had to first decide when the Commission’s reconsideration decision was communicated to the Claimant. Once that communication date was established, then the 30-day period started to count, as well as the one-year maximum deadline.

[23] The General Division decided that the Commission’s reconsideration decision was verbally communicated to him on May 29, 2023.^{Footnote 23} It explained that he was verbally informed about the decision and his appeal rights during a call he had with the Commission on the same date.^{Footnote 24} It relied on the Commission’s notes from their telephone conversation.^{Footnote 25}

[24] The General Division noted that the Commission had mailed out the reconsideration decision to him and that Canada Post “usually” delivers mail within 10 days in Canada.^{Footnote 26} It acknowledged that the Claimant had told the Commission “He might be moving soon.” It concluded that even if he didn’t get the reconsideration decision by mail, he was verbally told about it on May 29, 2023.^{Footnote 27}

[25] The General Division’s decision was based on the verbal communication date on May 29, 2023, and not the mailing date.

[26] The General Division found that he had filed his appeal to the General Division on February 10, 2025.^{Footnote 28} It concluded that his appeal was filed late—more than one year from when the Commission’s reconsideration decision was communicated to him on May 29, 2023. Because of that, it couldn’t give him more time to appeal, and his appeal would not proceed.

[27] The General Division wasn’t persuaded by the Claimant’s assertion that his appeal was not made late, and that he contacted the Tribunal in 2023 when he received the decision, and again in 2024 when Canada Revenue Agency garnished his tax rebates to repay his overpayment debt.^{Footnote 29}

[28] There is no arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process in this case.^{Footnote 30} The reason the Claimant’s appeal didn’t proceed to an oral hearing at the General Division was because he had filed it late—more than one year after the reconsideration decision was communicated to him. His appeal could not proceed by law. Also, the General Division has no power to conduct investigations.

There are no other reasons for giving the Claimant permission to appeal

[29] I reviewed the file and examined the General Division decision. I did not find any relevant evidence that the General Division might have ignored or misinterpreted.^{Footnote 31}

Conclusion

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