Search results
The SST Community Ambassador role empowers you to boost your and your peers' tech ambitions. As a passionate tech believer and official representative of SST, Ambassadors are responsible for creating impact in their communities via: Supporting to conduct workshops, contests and tech meet-ups. Spreading awareness about Scaler School of Technology.
- Plain Language
- What We Plan to Do
- Flexible and Proportional Rules
- Roles and Responsibilities For All Participants in An Appeal
- Language of The Appeal
- Clear Criteria For Requesting to File An Appeal Late
- Clear Criteria For Filing Documents Late
- Clear Criteria For Added Parties
- Streamlining How We Handle Adjournment Requests
- Streamlining How to Withdraw An Appeal
What we proposed during the consultations
We want to write our Rules in clear language so that users can easily: 1. findwhat they need 2. understandwhat they find 3. usethe information they find
What you told us
1. You strongly support plain-language rules that are both general and flexible 2. Survey results: 3. 76%of respondents agree that rules written in plain language would be extremely or very useful for them as representatives, stakeholders, and appellants 4. 89%of respondents agree that claimants would have an easier time understanding a text that’s in plain language than one that isn’t 5. 85%of respondents think it would be useful to have rules that claimants can easily navigate to see what s...
We plan to write the Rules in plain languageWe plan to keep the Rules as simple as possible so we can be flexible in our processesWe plan to write the Rules in a way that makes it easier for parties to understand the step their appeal is at and the next steps in the appeal processWhat we proposed during the consultations
We want our Rules to be: 1. useful (we want rules only where we need them) 2. client-centric, simple, and uncluttered 3. flexible so they make appeals as simple, quick, and fair as possible
What you told us
1. Generally, you support simple rules 2. Survey results: On a scale of 0% to 100% specific, respondents to our survey think our rules should be 28%specific; that is, rules should be general rather than specific.
What we plan to do
1. We’ll propose general rules that are simple and flexible 2. If the Rules don’t cover something that might be helpful to parties, we’ll provide that information some other way
What we proposed during the consultations
1. We want to be clear about what participants can expect from the SST and what the SSTexpects of them
What you told us
1. Generally, you agree with what we proposed 2. Survey results: 2.1. 65%of respondents think a roles and responsibilities section would be useful 2.2. 23%of respondents think it would be somewhat useful
What we plan to do
1. We plan to include a section in the Rules about roles and responsibilities
What we proposed during the consultations
1. We already have some practices about the language of the appeal and requesting interpreters, but we think we can do more 2. We want our Rules to explain that: 2.1. appeals at the SSTare in English or French 2.2. claimants choose the language of their appeal (English or French), not ESDC or the CEIC 2.3. if participants request it, we’ll provide an interpreter at a hearing or conference (at no cost to the participants) 2.4. parties must file documents in English or French 2.5. if a document...
What you told us
1. Requiring claimants to provide translations for documents in languages other than English or French could create a cost barrier for them 2. ESDChas concerns about third-party translations 3. Survey results: 3.1. 72%of respondents think it would be very useful to have a rule that claimants may choose whether they want the appeal to be in English or French 3.2. 20%of respondents think it would be somewhat useful
What we plan to do
1. We plan to move forward with what we proposed, but instead of having ESDC or the CEIC provide a translation any time they file a document that isn’t in a party’s chosen language for the appeal, they’ll have to do it only if: 1.1. the party asks for it, and 1.2. they didn't get the document directly from that party
What we proposed during the consultations
1. We want to clarify in a rule the criteria the SSTwill consider when deciding whether to give an extension of time to appeal 2. We proposed the following 2 approaches: 2.1. Approach 1: When deciding whether an extension is in the interest of justice, a member must consider any relevant factors, including whether: 2.1.1. there’s a reasonable explanation for the delay 2.1.2. there was a continuing intention to appeal 2.1.3. the appeal has some merit 2.2. Approach 2: When deciding whether an e...
What you told us
1. Stakeholders—including representatives—prefer Approach 2because it’s less strict and more client-centric 2. ESDC prefers Approach 1because it means hearing only cases with merit 3. Generally, stakeholders—including representatives—and ESDCsupport deciding extensions of time without asking the other parties for submissions
What we plan to do
1. We will explain the test in the Rules, but we chose an even simpler approach. We plan to simplify the Rules to say that the only factor to consider is whether there is a reasonable explanationfor the delay 2. We plan to proceed with an approach where we won’t have to askthe other parties for submissions
What we proposed during the consultations
1. We want to clarify in a rule the criteria the SSTwill consider when a party wants to rely on documentary evidence they filed late 2. This rule would promote fairness by helping make sure that parties file documentary evidence on time and know what’s expected when they file late 3. We’re considering the following approach: 3.1. When deciding whether to accept late documentary evidence, a member will consider any relevant factors, including the following: 3.1.1. whether the document is relev...
What you told us
1. There are concerns about the SSThaving to decide whether to allow a party to file late evidence when a party is waiting for documents, such as medical reports 2. We should give the other party enough time to respond 3. We should clarify how we’ll decide these matters
What we plan to do
1. We plan to move forward with what we proposed 2. We plan for the Rules to include factors for the member to consider when deciding whether to allow a party to file evidence late
What we proposed during the consultations
1. This comes up most often in Employment Insurance: We tell employers what to do if they want to be added as a party to an appeal 2. Our current Regulations: 2.1. say you have to show that you have a “direct interest” in the appeal to be added as a party 2.2. don’t define “direct interest” 3. The Federal Court of Appeal says that a party has a direct interest (under its rules) if “its legal rights are affected, legal obligations are imposed upon it, or it is prejudicially affected in some di...
What you told us
1. The Rules should clearly: 1.1. set out when we’ll automatically add a party (claimant or employer) 1.2. indicate that the party can choose whether to participate at the hearing 2. We should continue with our current approach for notifying employers in specific circumstances of their option to request to participate 3. The Commission would like us to automatically add employers as parties, in misconduct, voluntary leaving and labour dispute cases 4. We should keep the wording that a person...
What we plan to do
1. We plan to have the Rules set out that the SSTmay add a person as a party to the proceeding, if they have a direct interest in the decision 2. We plan to have the Rules set out that a person can request to be added 2.1. We plan to continue to notify employers in misconduct, voluntary leaving, and labour dispute cases about appeals, so that they can request to be added 3. We plan to simplify the information we need from individuals who ask to be added 4. We plan to add the claimant as a par...
What we proposed during the consultations
1. We’re considering making our current practice part of our Rules: 1.1. A one‑time process that allows a party to get their hearing rescheduled if they can’t attend (regardless of the reason) as long as 1.1.1. the party asks on time 1.1.2. all parties are available for a hearing within 10 days of the original hearing date 1.2. After this, if a party needs us to change their hearing date, they must file a request and show that they need a new date for the hearing to be fair
What you told us
1. Generally, you agree with what we proposed 2. You’d like more time for administrative change of date requests (informal rescheduling requests) 3. We should give parties more than 10 days to ask us to reschedule a hearing 4. You support a flexible rule, especially about the number of requests a party can make 5. Survey results: 5.1. 80%of respondents think it’s important that the Rules explain that a party can ask us to reschedule a hearing 5.2. 72%of respondents think it’s important that t...
What we plan to do
1. We plan to reschedule a hearing automatically if the party: 1.1. is asking for the first time 1.2. asks at least 5 business days before the hearing 1.3. is available for a hearing within 2 weeks of the original hearing date 2. For all other requests, we plan to reschedule the hearing only if it’s necessary for a fair hearing 3. We plan to ask the other parties for submissions only if it’s necessary to fairly decide whether to grant the request
What we proposed during the consultations
1. We’re considering the following approach: 1.1. you can withdraw your appeal any time before your hearing, but once it has started, you need our permission to withdraw 1.2. you can withdraw your appeal orally or in writing
What you told us
1. Some of you asked why a member would deny permission to withdraw 2. ESDC supports the current approach under our Regulations 2.1. Appellants should withdraw their appeals in writing so we have their requests on record
What we plan to do
1. We plan to have the Rules reflect our current process on the timing for withdrawing an appeal but we also plan to allow appellants to withdraw their appeals orally
However, it is essential to note that there is no specific weightage given to the personal interviews in the selection criteria. The selection process for SST consists of multiple rounds, including the entrance test (NSET) and the personal interview. To secure admission, candidates must clear both the entrance test and the personal interview ...
The SST isn’t a court. We’re an administrative tribunal. The federal courts can make sure administrative tribunals follow the rules when they decide cases. They do this through a process called judicial review. That’s when a court looks at whether a tribunal decision should be upheld or overturned.
If your application is denied and an internal reconsideration appeal is denied, then you go to the Social Security Tribunal (SST). The SST is a special type of court. It’s set up by the government exclusively to make final decisions on CPP disability claims. It is set up by the same government department that oversees CPP disability.
- David Brannen
3 days ago · Harvard University . Getty Images. During the 2023–24 admissions cycle, Harvard applications topped 50,000; UPenn’s applicant pool swelled by 10%, reaching over 65,000 applicants; and Yale saw ...
People also ask
What is the Social Security Tribunal (SST)?
Is the SST a court?
What is the first stage of the Social Security Tribunal?
How does the SST decide if I can get benefits?
What is the SST's operating context?
What are the two levels of the Social Security Tribunal?
The Social Security Tribunal (SST) is an independent administrative tribunal that makes decisions on social security appeals. We’re committed to providing Canadians with an appeal process that’s simple, quick and fair. If you disagree with a reconsideration decision from Service Canada, you can appeal to the SST. Our mandate.
