On this page
Decision
[1] The appeal is dismissed.
Introduction
[2] On May 10, 2013, a panel of the board of referees (the Board) dismissed the appeal of the Appellant against the previous determination of the Commission.
[3] In due course, the Appellant filed an application for leave to appeal with the Appeal Division and leave to appeal was granted.
[4] On August 11, 2015, a teleconference hearing was held. The Commission attended and made submissions, but the Appellant did not. As the file indicated that the Appellant personally signed for the notice of hearing, I was satisfied that they had received notice of the hearing and proceeded in their absence.
The law
[5] According to subsection 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act, the only grounds of appeal are that:
- (a) the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
- (b) the General Division erred in law in making its decision, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; or
- (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.
[6] As previously determined by the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada (Attorney General) v. Jewett, 2013 FCA 243, Chaulk v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FCA 190, and many other cases, the standard of review for questions of law and jurisdiction in employment insurance appeals is that of correctness, while the standard of review for questions of fact and mixed fact and law in employment insurance appeals is reasonableness.
Analysis
[7] The Appellant has appealed on the basis that he has sufficient hours to qualify for benefits. He does not understand why his many hours of training were not accepted as insurable hours of employment by the Board.
[8] The Commission concedes that the decision of the Board does not contain appropriate findings of law and fact. However, they note that the uncontested evidence in the file indicates that the Board was correct in concluding that the Appellant did not have sufficient hours to qualify for benefits. They ask that I give the decision the Board should have given.
[9] Having reviewed the file, I find myself in agreement with the Commission’s view that the Board decision is flawed and should not stand. I also agree that the correct remedy is to give the decision that the Board should have given.
[10] As noted by the Board, the Appellant was a new or re-entrant to the workforce and therefore needed 910 hours of insurable employment to qualify. An examination of the uncontested evidence shows that the Appellant had only 745 hours of insurable employment and therefore does not qualify for benefits.
[11] This appeal cannot succeed.
Conclusion
[12] For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.