Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] O. S. is the Claimant in this case. He applied for benefits and got Employment Insurance Emergency Response Benefit (EI ERB) for several weeks. He also got an advance lump sum payment of $2,000.00.

[3] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) first decided that the Claimant was overpaid EI ERB. This resulted in an overpayment of benefits. They reconsidered the claim and determined that he was actually entitled to one additional week of EI ERB, so that reduced his overall overpayment.^{Footnote 1}

[4] The General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal.^{Footnote 2} It found that he wasn’t entitled to get the EI ERB advance payment because he wasn’t unemployed long to collect the money. Because of that, it found he was liable to repay the overpayment.

[5] The Claimant is now asking for permission to appeal to the Appeal Division.^{Footnote 3} He argues that the General Division made an error of law and error of fact in its decision.^{Footnote 4}

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

Issue

[7] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error of law or based its decision on an important error of fact?

Analysis

[8] An appeal can proceed only if the Appeal Division gives permission to appeal.^{Footnote 5} I must be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 6} This means that there must be some arguable ground that the appeal might succeed.^{Footnote 7}

[9] The possible grounds of appeal to the Appeal Division are that the General Division:^{Footnote 8}

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

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

[10] The Claimant argues that General Division erred in the following ways:^{Footnote 9}

• The overpayment happened because Service Canada made an error
• The overpayment is not $1,500.00, but only $1,418.89, so this was an error
• He got a letter from Service Canada on February 19, 2025, that says they have the authority to write off the overpayment
• Repayment would cause him undue hardship because he is a low-income worker
• The Commission is responsible and they should take accountability for their “false decision”

There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of law

[11] An error of law can happen when the General Division does not apply the correct law or uses the correct law but misunderstands what it means or how to apply it.^{Footnote 10}

[12] The General Division correctly stated the law and relied on relevant case law in its decision.^{Footnote 11} It referred to the correct provisions dealing with EI ERB and its jurisdiction around overpayments.^{Footnote 12}

[13] The General Division properly stated that even if the Commission made a mistake in his case, it still has to apply the law.^{Footnote 13}

[14] The General Division also acknowledged the Claimant’s hardship argument but correctly stated that the Tribunal does not have the power to write off the overpayment debt because only the Commission can make that decision.^{Footnote 14} It explained that he could ask the Commission to forgive all or part of the overpayment debt due to financial hardship or discuss repayment options with the Canada Revenue Agency.^{Footnote 15}

[15] The Federal Court has confirmed that writing off an overpayment debt is solely within the jurisdiction of the Commission.^{Footnote 16}

[16] The Claimant’s reference to a recent letter he got from Service Canada on February 19, 2025—appears to be about writing off his overpayment. He needs to follow up with the Commission about this, not the Tribunal. And if he’s not satisfied with the decision the Commission makes about the write off, his recourse is to seek judicial review at the Federal Court.

[17] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of law.^{Footnote 17} It correctly cited the law and relevant case law in its decision. The Claimant needs to follow up with the Commission about writing off the overpayment or seek judicial review at the Federal Court if the Commission has already made a decision about it.

There is no arguable case that the General Division based its decision on an important error of fact

[18] An error of fact happens when the General Division has “based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.”^{Footnote 18}

[19] I’ll start by reviewing the General Division’s key findings first.

[20] The General Division had to first decide how many weeks of EI-ERB he received versus how many he was entitled to receive.

[21] The evidence shows that the Claimant collected EI ERB for 7 weeks from April 12, 2020, to May 30, 2020, at $500.00 per week. He also got a $2,000.00 advance payment of EI ERB issued on April 20, 2020.^{Footnote 19} The advance payment of EI ERB represents 4 weeks of benefits at $500.00 per week.

[22] The General Division concluded that the Claimant got 7 weeks of EI ERB + 4 weeks of EI ERB (this is the advance payment), totalling 11 weeks of EI ERB.^{Footnote 20} It found that the Claimant had returned to work on June 1, 2020.^{Footnote 21} These facts weren’t disputed by the Claimant.^{Footnote 22}

[23] The General Division decided that he was overpaid $2,000.00 in EI ERB for the advance payment because he had already returned to work, so he never claimed benefits for the weeks that the advance payment was supposed to cover. Essentially, it found that he wasn’t unemployed long enough to collect the benefits.^{Footnote 23}

[24] The General Division also noted that the Commission on reconsideration decided that he was entitled to one additional week of EI ERB at $500.00. Because of that, the Commission applied it to his existing overpayment and it was reduced to $1500.00.^{Footnote 24}

[25] There is no arguable case that the General Division based its decision on an important error of fact.^{Footnote 25} The Claimant got more EI ERB than he was entitled to get, so he is liable to repay the overpayment.

[26] I would also add that it isn’t arguable that the General Division erred in fact when it concluded that he was overpaid and was liable to repay $1500.00.^{Footnote 26} That is what he owed—at the time. His current debt may be a different amount or lesser amount for other reasons (i.e., payments made or collected, interest, etc.).

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

[27] I reviewed the file, and examined the General Division decision. The General Division did not misinterpret or fail to consider any relevant evidence.^{Footnote 27} It correctly stated the law and case law. Its key findings were consistent with the facts and evidence in the record.

Conclusion

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