Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff Darwin Yanchak sought recovery of $16,061 collected by the CRA through garnishment proceedings related to employment insurance overpayments.

• The Commission determined the Plaintiff was ineligible for benefits received and imposed a $1,993 penalty for making false statements in his EI claims.

• Reconsideration was requested nearly four years late, well beyond the 30-day statutory deadline under subsection 112(1) of the Employment Insurance Act.

• Multiple appeals through the Social Security Tribunal's General and Appeal Divisions were unsuccessful, and a separate judicial review application was discontinued.

• The Defendant moved for summary judgment under Rule 215, arguing no genuine issue for trial existed and that the claim was statute-barred.

• No free-standing right of action exists for alleged breach of a statute, as established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.

Background and facts of the dispute

Darwin Yanchak began receiving employment insurance benefits in May 2017. By a decision dated February 7, 2019, the Employment Insurance Commission re-examined his claim and determined he was ineligible for the amounts he had received. The Commission also imposed a penalty of $1,993.00 for having made false statements in his claims for EI benefits and advised the Plaintiff that a Notice of Debt would be sent with instructions about repayment. The Notice of Debt was certified on August 20, 2024, in the total amount of $22,030.00, comprising the penalty and three separate overpayment amounts of $5,430.00, $10,631.00, and $3,985.00.

CRA collection and garnishment action

In October 2021, the CRA wrote to the Plaintiff advising it was responsible for collecting debts owed to the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) and asking the Plaintiff to make contact. By a letter dated January 23, 2023, the CRA advised the Plaintiff that a demand had been sent to his employer, Farm Boy Company Inc., requesting a deduction of 30% of any money to be paid to him. In his Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff alleged that the tribunal and CRA caused undue damages when they garnished his wages, taking nearly half of his net pay with little notice in January 2023, and continued to garnish wages until May 2023 even though an appeal had been submitted to employment insurance in February 2023.

The Plaintiff's reconsideration requests and tribunal proceedings

The Plaintiff requested reconsideration of the Commission's ineligibility decision on January 24, 2023—well beyond the 30-day window prescribed under subsection 112(1) of the Employment Insurance Act. On June 22, 2023, the Commission denied the reconsideration request since it was not submitted within the permitted delay. The following day, the Commission also denied the Plaintiff's request that the employment insurance overpayment in the amount of $16,061.00 be "written off," advising that the Employment Insurance Regulations allowed a write-off in certain conditions, including when the overpayment was not made as a result of an error or misrepresentation by an applicant, and that those conditions did not apply in the Plaintiff's case. The Plaintiff then appealed to the Social Security Tribunal's General Division on July 17, 2023, which dismissed his appeal on August 28, 2023. The Plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Tribunal's Appeal Division on September 23, 2023, and leave was granted on December 11, 2023. On February 16, 2024, the Appeal Division found that the General Division had erred and remitted the matter to the General Division for redetermination by a different member. However, the General Division again found on May 27, 2024, that although the Commission had not acted "judicially" in making its reconsideration decision, the Plaintiff had not satisfied the factors to allow his reconsideration request. The Appeal Division denied a further application to appeal on July 11, 2024.

The Federal Court action and the Defendant's motion

The Plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim on August 21, 2024, seeking monetary compensation of $16,061 and any interest and penalties incurred. He also separately commenced an application for judicial review (File No. T-2086-24) on August 9, 2024, but did not pursue it and filed a Notice of Discontinuance on October 3, 2024. The Defendant, His Majesty the King, filed a Defence on March 14, 2025, denying any liability for the claim and asserting that the claim was statute-barred. On the same date, the Defendant brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 215 of the Federal Courts Rules, submitted for consideration without personal appearance pursuant to Rule 369, arguing the Statement of Claim did not raise a genuine issue for trial. The Plaintiff did not respond to the motion.

The Court's analysis and statutory provisions at issue

The Court noted that the action, seeking recovery of $16,061, was a "simplified action" within the scope of Rule 292, and that pursuant to Rule 297, a motion for summary judgment may not be brought in a simplified action. Nonetheless, the Court exercised its discretion to depart from the strict application of the Rules. On the merits, Justice Heneghan found that the Plaintiff's claim did not raise a genuine issue for trial on any basis. Section 68 of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act provides that the decision of the Tribunal on any application or appeal is final and, except for judicial review under the Federal Courts Act, is not subject to appeal to or review by any court. Additionally, the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in The Queen (Canada) v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool was cited for the principle that no free-standing right of action exists for an alleged breach of a statute. Regarding the garnishment claim, the Court found no evidence that the garnishment action was irregular or wrong, noting that subsections 126(4), (5), and (7) of the Employment Insurance Act authorize garnishment of wages until a debt is satisfied, and that the CRA was not required to wait indefinitely before taking steps to recover the debt.

Ruling and outcome

The Federal Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and the Plaintiff's action was struck out in its entirety. Although the Defendant had requested costs in the amount of $3,000.00, the Court declined to award any costs. Justice Heneghan found that the Defendant's motion and motion record showed "excessive caution," noting that the Defendant had filed a motion for summary judgment when the same object could have been pursued by a motion to strike under Rule 221(1)(a) or Rule 221(1)(e), and that the Defendant had unnecessarily raised a preliminary objection about his identification in the style of cause. The Court also observed that the Defendant did not choose the "most expeditious" way to resolve the Plaintiff's action. The Defendant thus succeeded on the merits, but no costs were ordered.