Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] A. C. is the Appellant. I am dismissing her appeal.

[2] The Appellant is not entitled to the 24-week benefit period extension. This means she is not entitled to the benefits she was paid during those 24 weeks.

[3] The Commission acted within its administrative authority when making changes to the Appellant’s claims. However, the Commission made several errors when inputting those changes, which resulted in the Appellant being paid benefits she wasn’t entitled to receive.

[4] The Appellant is required to repay the benefits she wasn’t entitled to receive.^{Footnote 1} This means I am not writing off or reducing the $6,516.00 overpayment that remains outstanding.

[5] I am truly sympathetic to the Appellant’s circumstances. Unfortunately, this Tribunal has no authority to write off the remaining overpayment.^{Footnote 2} The Appellant may wish to ask the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to write off the overpayment for financial hardship, as I have set out below.

Overview

[6] The Appellant applied for EI benefits on May 10, 2023. The Commission initially established her claim (benefit period) as of May 7, 2023.

[7] The Commission considered the earnings and hours listed on the second ROE (W9736831), when determining the Appellant was entitled to 23 weeks of benefits at a rate of $535.00 per week.^{Footnote 3}

[8] The Commission allocated the Appellant’s severance pay to her claims for the weeks of May 7, 2023, to July 15, 2023, with a balance of $217.00 applied to the week of July 16, 2023.^{Footnote 4} This allocation prevented the payment of benefits during the weeks of allocation, so the Commission extended the benefit period by 10 weeks.^{Footnote 5}

[9] The Appellant asked the Commission to backdate (antedate) her benefit period to March 26, 2023. The Appellant told the Commission that she didn’t agree with her hours and earnings as listed on the ROE. She also said she received $5,931.00 as vacation pay, paid due to separation. She provided the Commission with a copy of her pay stub showing the vacation payout.^{Footnote 6}

[10] The Commission approved the Appellant’s antedate request and started the benefit period as of March 26, 2023. The Commission also made changes to the claim based on the Appellant’s request.

[11] First, the Commission changed the allocation of separation money to include her vacation pay. The allocation was changed to the weeks of March 26, 2023, to May 6, 2023, and the two weeks of September 3, 2023, and September 10, 2023. This amended allocation resulted in a $1,128.00 overpayment.

[12] Second, the Commission changed (recalculated) the Appellant’s benefit rate to include the vacation pay earnings. This increased her benefit rate from $535.00 to $631.00 per week.

[13] Third, when the Appellant’s benefit rate increased, the allocation of severance and vacation pay no longer prevented the payment of benefits. The Appellant was issued partial benefit payments for the weeks of the allocation. This meant the Appellant was no longer entitled to the 10-week benefit period extension.

[14] The Appellant asked the Commission to reconsider the $1,128.00 overpayment. During the reconsideration, the Commission agreed that it didn’t apply its own reconsideration policy properly when allocating the vacation pay, because benefits had already been paid.^{Footnote 7}

[15] Fourth, to correct its error, the Commission changed the allocation, to remove the overpayment. The allocation to the weeks of March 26, 2023, to July 16, 2023, remained the same as they did not create the overpayment. But the balance of the separation money was allocated the weeks of September 3, 2023, and September 10, 2023. The Commission issued its reconsideration decision on November 21, 2023, stating, “The amended allocation will remove the $1,128.00 overpayment.”

[16] During the September 16, 2025, hearing, the Appellant testified that she is not appealing the November 21, 2023, reconsideration decision. This is because she now understands that the Commission removed the $1,128.00 overpayment.

[17] The month after the overpayment was removed, the employer issued a third ROE (W03967058) on December 1, 2023.^{Footnote 8} This third ROE listed 1243 hours and $27,259.07 earnings. The Appellant contacted the Commission and said she disagreed with the hours and earnings listed on this ROE and the calculation of her claim.

[18] Fifth, on January 19, 2024, the Commission changed the calculation of the Appellant’s claim. Using the hours and earnings from the third ROE (W03967058), the recalculation increased her benefit rate $1.00, from $631.00 to $632.00 per week. The entitlement weeks remained at 23 weeks. But the Commission made a mistake when it recalculated the claim at this time. The Commission started the claim on May 7, 2023, instead of March 26, 2023. This mistake created an overpayment of $1,311.00.^{Footnote 9}

[19] Sixth, when the Commission changed the start date back to March 26, 2023, it made another mistake. The Commission extended the benefit period from 10 weeks to 24 weeks, in error. The Commission paid the Appellant benefits during that benefit period extension for the weeks of May 12, 2024, to August 4, 2024.

[20] Seventh, the Commission corrected its error when it removed the 24-week benefit period extension. This created another overpayment for the 13 weeks of benefits paid for the weeks of May 12, 2024, to August 4, 2024. The Commission issued its reconsideration decision on October 17, 2024, changing the benefit period extension from 24 weeks to 0 weeks.^{Footnote 10}

[21] The Commission took action to reduce the overpayments. Specifically, the Commission allowed the Appellant to refuse payment for weeks she was previously paid partial benefits, this would allow payment for weeks at her full benefit rate. The payment refusal for those partial weeks paid, created another overpayment. That overpayment was partially recouped (recovered) by applying payments for full weeks of benefits she had not yet been paid. The Commission also recouped $158.00 from several weeks of benefit payments, as listed on the Commission’s spreadsheet (RGD6-5 and RGD6-6). After the $6,958.00 recovered (recouped) benefits are applied, the final overpayment balance is $6,516.00.^{Footnote 11}

[22] The Appellant appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). She disagrees with the overpayments. The Appellant said the overpayment is not her fault, English is her second language, she was honest and reported everything to the Commission. The Appellant also said that repayment of the overpayment is difficult given her age and financial situation.

Matters to consider first

English as a second language

[23] The Tribunal arranged for an interpreter to attend the in-person hearing and provide interpretation services for the Appellant.

[24] At the outset of the hearing, the Appellant spoke clearly in English and was responsive to what I said in English. She explained that she doesn’t understand things written in English, she is turning 72 years old in January, and that she worked for more than 47 years. She explained how she manages well by remembering what she is told. At times throughout the hearing, the Appellant displayed a general understanding of what occurred at different times throughout her claim. For example, she commented in English, how the Commission was withholding $158.00 from her weekly benefits. She also said the Commission didn’t stop holding back those payments (the recoupments) when it said it would.

[25] The Appellant said she understands more if she is told things instead of reading. She asked that the hearing be conducted in Punjabi so there is no misunderstanding. So, throughout the hearing the interpreter translated everything from English to Punjabi and from Punjabi to English. So, I find the Appellant had a full and fair opportunity to be heard.

Appeal returned to the General Division

[26] This appeal was first heard on March 25, 2025, by my colleague at the Tribunal’s General Division (GD) (appeal GE-24-3744). That GD Member issued their decision on April 2, 2025, allowing the appeal. The Commission appealed that decision to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division (AD) (appeal AD-25-287).

[27] The Appeal Division allowed the Commission’s appeal. The AD determined that the General Division Member made errors of jurisdiction, including the failure to deal with the late appeal issue, regarding the November 21, 2023, decision, and the extension of the benefit period issue. The AD returned the matter to the General Division to be reconsidered. The appeal was returned to me, a GD Member, and was given a new appeal number, GE-25-2378.

Cancellation of case conference

[28] Upon review of the AD decision, I scheduled a case conference to be held by teleconference on September 4, 2025. The Appellant asked to change the case conference to an in-person meeting.

[29] To resolve this appeal as quickly, fairly, and at the least expense possible, I cancelled the case conference and scheduled the in-person hearing for September 16, 2025.

[30] I wrote to the Appellant on August 28, 2025, and explained I would clarify the issues under appeal at the start of the in-person hearing, with the assistance of the interpreter.

Issues under appeal

[31] The late appeal issue relates to the Commission’s November 21, 2023, reconsideration decision. As stated above, that reconsideration was decided in favour of the Appellant where the Commission removed the $1,128.00 overpayment.

[32] The Appellant testified that she is not appealing the November 21, 2023, reconsideration decision. This means the October 17, 2024, reconsideration decision that removes the 24-week benefit period extension, and the Appellant’s request to remove the overpayment, are the issues under appeal.

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal’s General Division

October 17, 2024, reconsideration decision

[33] The Tribunal’s authority to determine issues under appeal is provided under section 113 of the EI Act. This section of the EI Act states that a party who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Commission, which was made under section 112, may appeal that decision to the Social Security Tribunal.

[34] In this case, the Appellant submitted a request for reconsideration of the Commission’s decision to cancel the 24-week benefit period extension, which resulted in a large overpayment.^{Footnote 12} Upon reconsideration, the Commission maintained its decision that the benefit period is, “extended by 0 weeks instead of 24 weeks.”^{Footnote 13} That decision was issued on October 17, 2024, under section 112 of the EI Act.

[35] This means the issues I have the authority to determine under this appeal relate to whether the Appellant is entitled to a benefit period extension and the requirement to repay benefits she wasn’t entitled to receive, not the issues that the Appellant may argue should be decided upon.^{Footnote 14}

Total insurable hours and earnings

[36] I recognize that there are numerous documents on file where the Appellant told the Commission that she disagrees with her earnings and hours listed on the ROEs.^{Footnote 15}

[37] It appears that the previous GD Member accepted jurisdiction on the issue of insurable earnings and hours. She asked the Commission to obtain an insurability ruling from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

[38] The CRA ruled the Appellant’s earnings from September 12, 2022, to March 26, 2023, were $27,249.86 and her hours in her qualifying period, from March 14, 2022, to March 26, 2023, were 1243.^{Footnote 16} The 1243 hours were listed on every ROE.

[39] The Tribunal is bound by the CRA ruling. This means I can’t change the Appellant’s earnings or hours as determined by the CRA.^{Footnote 17} This Tribunal has no jurisdiction (authority) to hear disputes about a CRA ruling. If the Appellant disagrees with the CRA ruling, she must submit an appeal to the Tax Court.^{Footnote 18}

Payment refusal and claim calculations

[40] I find this Tribunal doesn’t have the authority (jurisdiction) to decide matters relating to the Commission’s decision to allow payment refusal for claims previously paid to a claimant who was entitled to receive those benefits. My reasons are as follows.

[41] The Tribunal is an independent administrative tribunal that makes decisions which uphold the relevant legislation. Put another way, the Tribunal considers the facts and evidence, then applies relevant Employment Insurance law.^{Footnote 19}

[42] There is nothing in the EI Act, the EI Regulations, or case law that provides for a request to cancel previously paid weekly claims that a claimant was entitled to receive. This means the Tribunal doesn’t have the jurisdiction to cancel a weekly claim that was previously paid. It is the Commission who has the authority to make those administrative decisions.

[43] The Commission oversees the administration of the EI program. Under the authority of the EI Act, the Commission may review and approve policies, guidelines, and requests for recalculations related to the EI program administration and delivery.^{Footnote 20}

[44] In this case the Commission made changes to the Appellant’s claims based on her requests to do so. I agree with the Commission when it states that the changes made at the request of the Appellant were not reconsideration of claims under section 52 of the EI Act.

[45] After careful consideration of the foregoing, I find the Tribunal does not have the authority (jurisdiction) to decide matters relating to payment refusal or cancellation of previously paid claims, where the claimant was entitled to those benefits.

Issues

[46] Does the Appellant qualify for a benefit period extension?

[47] Is the Appellant required to repay benefits she wasn’t entitled to receive (the overpayment)?

Analysis

Benefit period extension

[48] To be paid EI benefits, a claimant must submit an application (make a claim). If they meet the qualifying conditions, a benefit period is established.

[49] The benefit period is normally 52 weeks. This is the period when benefits may be paid.^{Footnote 21} A benefit period is extended in cases where an allocation of separation money prevents the payment of EI benefits.^{Footnote 22}

[50] When a benefit period is extended, it only increases the period during which benefits may be paid. A benefit period extension doesn’t increase the number of weeks of benefits a claimant is entitled to receive.

[51] I agree with the Commission when it states the Appellant’s benefit period was extended by 24 weeks in error. This means she was paid benefits she wasn’t entitled to receive.

[52] The law is clear. In cases where a claimant’s separation money prevents the payment of benefits, their benefit period is extended. In this case, when the Appellant’s benefit rate was recalculated and increased to $632.00, she became entitled to partial weeks of benefits. This means she no longer qualified for the 24-week benefit period extension because the allocation of her separation money no longer prevented the payment of EI benefits when her benefit rate increased to $632.00.

[53] Based on the foregoing, I find the Appellant isn’t entitled to a benefit period extension or the benefits she was paid during the incorrect extension period. Further, as set out above, changes and errors made by the Commission increased the overpayment. So, the overpayment balance of $6,516.00 is valid.

Requirement to repay an overpayment of EI benefits

[54] The law says a claimant is required to repay the benefits they aren’t entitled to receive.^{Footnote 23}

[55] The Appellant testified that she didn’t do anything wrong who whole life. She worked for 47 years and never collected EI benefits before. She will be 72 years old in January and is currently having problems with her heart. She wants the overpayment removed.

[56] This is truly an unfortunate situation. The Commission made so many errors that it’s not reasonable to expect the Appellant would understand which benefit payments she was entitled to receive.

[57] Unfortunately, I don’t have the authority (jurisdiction) to decide on requests to write off or reduce the Appellant’s overpayment. That authority belongs to the Commission.^{Footnote 24}

[58] A decision by the Commission about waiving an overpayment can’t be appealed to the Tribunal.^{Footnote 25} It is the Federal Court of Canada who has the jurisdiction to hear an appeal relating to a write-off issue.^{Footnote 26}

[59] The law states that an amount payable for an overpayment under section 43 of the Act, may be written off by the Commission if the Commission considers that, having regard to all the circumstances, the repayment of the amount, would result in undue hardship to the debtor (Appellant).^{Footnote 27}

[60] If the Commission delegates the task to write off the debt to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), it is obliged under the EI Regulations to give the Appellant a decision about such a write-off. The Commission can forward a recommendation from the Social Security Tribunal to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to consider a write-off request by completing an ESDC S&P5018 (2017-07-008) E form.^{Footnote 28}

[61] I acknowledge the Commission submits that the Appellant was told that she was paid benefits contrary to the structure of the EI Act so an overpayment write-off cannot be applied to this debt.

[62] So, in this case, I ask that the Commission issue the write-off refusal letter and complete the ESDC S&P5018 form and forward this recommendation from the Social Security Tribunal to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to consider a write-off request and allow this Appellant the opportunity to support her claim of undue hardship.

[63] I recognize that this may not be the outcome the Appellant was seeking. However, tempting as it may be in such cases (and this may well be one), adjudicators such as myself, are not permitted to rewrite law, nor to interpret it in a manner that is contrary to its plain meaning, even in the interest of compassion.^{Footnote 29}

Conclusion

[64] The appeal is dismissed.