Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] On January 27, 2014 (or perhaps January 28, 2014, as the decision is inconsistently dated), a member of the General Division determined that the appeal of the Applicant from the previous determination of the Commission should be dismissed.  In due course, the Applicant filed an application requesting leave to appeal to the Appeal Division.

[2] Subsection 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act states that the only grounds of appeal are that:

1. (a) The General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
2. (b) The General Division erred in law in making its decision, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; or
3. (c) The General Division based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.

[3] The Act also states that leave to appeal is to be refused if the appeal has “no reasonable chance of success”.

[4] In his submissions, the Applicant states that because he was constructively dismissed, his appeal should be allowed and provides information regarding his work history.  Although he references several of the grounds of appeal, he has not articulated any specific error on the part of the General Division.  He appears to be asking that I re-hear the case and come to a factual determination different from that already rendered by the General Division.

[5] I note that the role of the Appeal Division is to determine if a reviewable error set out in ss. 58(1) of the Acthas been made by the General Division and if so to provide a remedy for that error.  In the absence of such a reviewable error, the law does not permit the Appeal Division to intervene.

[6] In order to have a reasonable chance of success, the Applicant must explain how at least one reviewable error has been made by the General Division.  Having failed to do so, this application for leave to appeal does not have a reasonable chance of success and must be refused.