Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] On September 23, 2014, a member of the General Division determined that the appeal of the Appellant from the previous determination of the Commission should be dismissed.  In due course, the Appellant 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] The Appellant’s application, in its entirety, states that “[t]he stated issue was not the reason for the appeal.  I appealed the decision for the repayment of benefits and [the General Division member] stated it was because of disqualification which was not the case”.

[5] Although not entirely clear to me, it appears that the Appellant is arguing that because the Commission first determined that he was entitled to benefits, he should not have to repay them now that the General Division has upheld the reconsideration decision to the contrary.

[6] It is well established that in cases where a claimant has received benefits that they are not entitled to, the resulting overpayments must be repaid.  Without some specific reason why this should not be so, arguments to the contrary do not have a reasonable chance of success.

[7] The role of the Appeal Division is to determine if a reviewable error set out in ss. 58(1) of the Act has 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.

[8] In order to have a reasonable chance of success, the Appellant must explain how at least one reviewable error has been made by the General Division.  It is not enough to simply assert that overpayments should not have to be repaid or that the General Division was wrong.

[9] Having failed to explain how at least one reviewable error has been made, this application for leave to appeal does not have a reasonable chance of success and must be refused.