Summary of Issue: Appeal System

Decision A389.17 Full Text of Decision A389.17

The claimant appealed the attached Federal Court’s decision (2017 FC 998) dismissing her application for judicial review of the decision of the Social Security Tribunal (Appeal Division) (AD-SST) rendered on March 27, 2015. The appeal focus on the decision of the AD-SST refusing her leave to appeal the decision of the Social Security Tribunal (General Division) (GD-SST). The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the Federal Court that it was reasonable for the AD-SST to refuse leave to appeal. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Decision T2111-17 Full Text of Decision T2111-17

The claimant applied for sickness benefits as he was unable to work due to illness, injury or quarantine. This application was approved, and benefits were paid to the claimant. The Commission terminated the claimant's benefits after 15 weeks, which is the maximum allowable time under the EIA. The claimant requested an additional 25 weeks of payment on the basis that had he applied for regular benefits instead of sickness benefits, he would have received this additional amount. The General Division dismissed the claimant's appeal . The Appeal Division had to determine whether the claimant had made out one of the three grounds listed in subsection 58(1) of the DESDA. The claimant did not make out any of these grounds. There was only one decision that the Appeal Division could have reached, given the issue appealed, and the 15 week limitation on sickness benefits .The application for judicial review was dismissed

Decision T106.18 Full Text of Decision T106.18

The claimant's application was dismissed on the basis that he had lost his employment as a result of his own misconduct.The Commission then refused to reconsider its earlier decision on the basis that the claimant had not demonstrated that he satisfied either of theconditions for reconsideration. The SST-General Division considered the same criteria of reasonable explanation for the delay and continuing intention to seek reconsideration, and was similarly not satisfied that the claimant met these criteria, citing much the same reasons as given by the Commission.The SST-Appeal Division concluded that the appeal had no reasonable chance of success and refused leave to appeal the decision of the SST-General Division . The Judicial Review was dismissed.

Decision T695.15 Full Text of Decision T695.15

The issue is one of antedate, s. 10(5) Employment Insurance Act, where the claimant did not succeed to show good cause for delaying her request for nearly nine years on account of her medical circumstances. The SST-General Division (GD) confirmed the Commission’s decision refusing to antedate the claim for benefits; the SST-AD concluded that there were no reviewable errors, and that the appeal had no reasonable chance of success.

Decision T1184.16 Full Text of Decision T1184.16

This was an application for Judicial Review (JR) by the Attorney General of Canada (AGC) against a decision of the Social Security Tribunal (SST)-Appeal Division (AD) denying the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) leave to appeal a decision of the SST-General Division (GD). The claimant, a Correctional Service Canada employee, was dismissed for having a personal relationship outside of work with an inmate for whom she was responsible. The claimant’s Employment Insurance (EI) application was denied by the Commission on the grounds that the respondent had lost her job by reason of her own misconduct. This decision was upheld on review but the SST-GD allowed the appeal, holding that the claimant had not acted deliberately and willfully or demonstrated such carelessness or negligence that she brought about her own dismissal. The Commission’s request for leave to appeal was denied by the SST-AD, but allowed by the Federal Court

Decision T-1870.96 Full Text of Decision T-1870.96

Court decided that the request for a judicial review was late since it was not made within the 30 days set out in par. 18.1(2) of the Federal Court Act.

Decision A-1420.83 Full Text of Decision A-1420.83

The Umpire verbally indicated what his decision was to be. S.28 application filed within 10 days. Written decision given later. As a written decision is required under reg. 70(1), the application was not made in respect of a "decision".

Decision A-0548.83 Full Text of Decision A-0548.83

Decision of Umpire delivered orally on 11-4 and in writing on 30-6; appeal to FC on 21-4 premature since decision under appeal did not really exist before 30-6 under Reg. 70. However, appeal is still valid.

Decision T-2279.00 Full Text of Decision T-2279.00

This case involved the exchange of information between Customs and HRDC. The Court having decided (T-864-98) that such an exchange was not permitted under the Privacy Act, the claimant asked to have the amount of overpayment and penalty that he had already paid returned, along with damages. The Court declared that it did not have the jurisdiction to decide on the action for damages because of the exclusive appeal mechanism provided by the Act to challenge the Commission's decisions, namely appealing to the Board of Referees, then the Umpire and finally requesting a judicial review under section 28 of the Federal Court Act. Claimant's motion dismissed.

Decision 2122291 Full Text of Decision 2122291

Refusal by the Board to consider the constitutional arguments. Appeal brought before the Federal Court instead of the Umpire. Question legally submitted to the Court, but it does not have the jurisdiction here to settle the issue definitively. That came under the Umpire. The usual procedure for objecting to decisions of the Commission is, first, an appeal to the Board, then to an Umpire and then to the Federal Court of Appeal, or directly from the Board to the Federal Court of Appeal.

Decision A-0848.76 Full Text of Decision A-0848.76

Appeal to FCA from the Board of Referees’ decision. CEIC alleged that the appeal was premature since the avenues of recourse set out in the E.I. Act had not been exhausted. This may seem abnormal, but the recourse exists as soon as an appeal is made to the FCA.

Decision T-0273.74 Full Text of Decision T-0273.74

A request to have a Board's decision set aside cannot be brought under s.18 before the Trial Division but under s.28 before the Appeal Division of the Federal Court.