Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] On April 24, 2014, a member of the General Division declined to allow an appeal from the previous determination of the Commission. On June 16, 2014, the Appellant filed an application requesting leave to appeal this decision to the Appeal Division.

[2] The Appellant’s application to the Appeal Division was filed late. Although her explanation for this is not particularly compelling, because the delay was fairly short I find that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to disallow the application for lateness.  I also note that for the reasons below the Commission will not suffer any prejudice as a result of this.   I therefore allow further time within which this application can be made.

[3] 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.

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

[5] The underlying decision under appeal here is the Commission decision to refuse to grant an extension of time to the Appellant to file a request for reconsideration. The Appellant appears to have filed such a request approximately three (3) years after she was informed of her initial refusal of benefits, well beyond the 30-day appeal period.

[6] In her application, although the Appellant references the “principal [sic] of natural justice”, no particular error on the part of the General Division member is alleged.

Instead, the Appellant re-states many of her views regarding the initial refusal of the Commission to grant her benefits. As noted above, that initial refusal was not before the General Division member and is not under appeal here.

[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.  It is not our role to re-hear the case de novo.

[8] In order to have a reasonable chance of success, the Appellant must explain in some detail how in their view at least one reviewable error set out in the Act has been made.  Having failed to do so, this application for leave to appeal does not have a reasonable chance of success and must be refused.