Canada (Attorney General) v. Johnson

Firms involved

Department of Justice Canada, Unrepresented

Applicant

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Law Firm

Department of Justice Canada

Lawyer(s)

Marcus Dirnberger

Respondent

LAURA JOHNSON

Law Firm

Unrepresented

Laura Johnson applied for parental benefits on March 4, 2021, selecting extended parental benefits.
The Employment Insurance Act stipulates choices between standard (35 weeks) and extended (61 weeks) benefits are final once paid.
In October 2021, based on her accountant's advice, Ms. Johnson tried switching to standard benefits.
The Canada Employment Insurance Commission denied this change.
Ms. Johnson appealed to the Social Security Tribunal General Division, citing the application as misleading.
The General Division agreed, stating her intention aligned with the standard benefits' one-year leave.
The Commission challenged this in the Tribunal's Appeal Division.
The Appeal Division found the General Division erred but upheld Ms. Johnson was misled, invalidating her initial choice.
On May 10, 2022, the Appeal Division reversed the Commission's decision.
The Attorney General of Canada seeks to review this decision.
Prior rulings ("Karval v. Canada, 2021" and "Canada v. Hull, 2022") emphasize irrevocability of benefits choice post-payment.
The final takeaway: The Appeal Division's decision is deemed unreasonable, and a judicial review is recommended without sending it back to the Social Security Tribunal.

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

Case Number

A-124-22

Practice Area

Labour & Employment Law

Amount

Winner

Applicant

Trial Start Date

09 June 2022

Download documents

Canada (Attorney General) v. Johnson.pdf

Latest News

Which province is seeing the sharpest decline in youth employment?

Ontario's strong-mayor powers used predominantly for hiring and firing: report

‘They think they have the right to dictate things’

Employers of Choice 2026: submissions close soon!