|
EI - Financial Hardship. Puig v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Puig v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2024) the Federal Court of Appeal dismisses a judicial review of "a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal" regarding EI.
Here the court considers 'financial hardship' in relief from overpayment recovery:[34] In Molchan at paragraphs 40-55, I examine whether the Commission was bound to consider financial hardship in the exercise of its discretion under section 52 ['Reconsideration of Claim'] of the EIA. While the Commission’s exercise of discretion in that case was guided by the reconsideration policy, I find in Molchan that the Appeal Division’s comments regarding the claimant’s ability to seek a write-off of her debt are consistent with the legislation, which sets out a specific procedure for undue hardship cases. Subparagraph 56(1)(f)(ii) of the Employment Insurance Regulations, S.O.R./96-332 gives the Commission broad powers to write off an amount payable under section 43 of the EIA if the repayment of the amount due would result in undue hardship to the claimant. Section 43 provides that a claimant is liable to repay an amount paid by the Commission as benefits and to which the claimant was not entitled.
[35] Consequently, as the Appeal Division noted, the authority to overwrite a debt does not lie with either the General Division or the Appeal Division. That said, Mr. Puig is not left without relief. He may ask the Commission for a write-off on the basis of financial hardship and it will be for the Commission to decide if relief is appropriate. . T-Giorgis v. Canada (Attorney General)
In T-Giorgis v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2024) the Federal Court of Appeal dismisses a judicial review of "a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal" regarding EI.
Here the court considers the role of 'financial hardship' in waiving overpayment recovery after an eligibility reconsideration:[68] .... in Molchan v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 46, rendered concurrently with this decision, I discuss the relevance of a similar argument. I find that the Appeal Division could reasonably find that financial hardship is meant to be considered in the context of a write-off under subparagraph 56(1)(f)(ii) of the Employment Insurance Regulations, which explicitly provides the Commission with the authority to write off an amount payable under section 43 of the EIA if repayment of the amount due would result in undue hardship to the claimant (Molchan at paras. 40-55). Section 43 of the EIA provides that a claimant is liable to repay an amount paid by the Commission to the claimant as benefits to which the claimant is not entitled. Therefore, Ms. T-Giorgis may ask the Commission for a write-off on the basis of financial hardship and it will be for the Commission to decide if relief is appropriate.
|
