|
EI - Commision Reconsideration. Canada (Attorney General) v. Emamifar
In Canada (Attorney General) v. Emamifar (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the AG's JR, this brought when the Social Security Tribunal (SST) "Appeal Division decided that the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) could not reconsider [a] claim for parental benefits under the Employment Insurance Act ... more than 36 months after those benefits had last been paid to her", and thus upheld the respondent's claim.
Here the court considers the difference between the EI Commission issuing a penalty [under EIA s.38(1)(a) 'Penalty for claimants, etc.'], and of a time-extended 'reconsideration' of a claim [under EIA s.52(5) 'Extended time to reconsider claim']:[1] The applicant, the Attorney General of Canada, seeks judicial review of the decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal (SST) in Canada Employment Insurance Commission v. Z. E., 2025 SST 855 (the Decision). The Appeal Division decided that the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) could not reconsider Ms. Zahra Emamifar’s claim for parental benefits under the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 (the Act) more than 36 months after those benefits had last been paid to her. The Commission may only extend the reconsideration period beyond 36 months to 72 months where it is of the opinion that a false or misleading statement or representation has been made in connection with the claim: subsection 52(5) of the Act. ....
....
[13] The General Division allowed Ms. Emamifar’s appeal (Z. E. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2025 SST 856 (GD Decision)). It found that the Commission had relied on paragraph 38(1)(a) of the Act to reconsider her claim. That provision empowers the Commission to impose a penalty on a claimant in certain circumstances, including where the claimant made a representation that the claimant knew was false or misleading, or knowingly failed to declare earnings for a period in which the claimant claimed benefits. As the Appeal Division later recognized in the Decision, the Commission did not impose a penalty on Ms. Emamifar.
....
[16] The Appeal Division agreed with the Commission that it had not imposed a penalty on Ms. Emamifar, and that the General Division had thus erred in concluding that the Commission had relied on paragraph 38(1)(a) of the Act to extend the period for reconsideration of Ms. Emamifar’s claim to 72 months. Rather, the authority to extend the reconsideration period beyond 36 months is in subsection 52(5) of the Act. Having found an error of law, the Appeal Division decided to substitute its own decision for that of the General Division rather than sending the file back.
....
[16] The Appeal Division agreed with the Commission that it had not imposed a penalty on Ms. Emamifar, and that the General Division had thus erred in concluding that the Commission had relied on paragraph 38(1)(a) of the Act to extend the period for reconsideration of Ms. Emamifar’s claim to 72 months. Rather, the authority to extend the reconsideration period beyond 36 months is in subsection 52(5) of the Act. Having found an error of law, the Appeal Division decided to substitute its own decision for that of the General Division rather than sending the file back.
|
