Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The Tribunal refuses leave to appeal to the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal.

Introduction

[2] On June 29, 2015, the General Division of the Tribunal determined that:

• - The Applicant had lost his employment by reason of his own misconduct pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act (the “Act”).

[3] The Applicant requested leave to appeal to the Appeal Division on July 16, 2015.

Issue

[4] The Tribunal must decide if the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.

The law

[5] According to subsections 56(1) and 58(3) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (the “DESD Act”), “an appeal to the Appeal Division may only be brought if leave to appeal is granted” and “the Appeal Division must either grant or refuse leave to appeal”.

[6] Subsection 58(2) of the DESD Act provides that “leave to appeal is refused if the Appeal Division is satisfied that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success”.

Analysis

[7] Subsection 58(1) of the DESD Act states that the only grounds of appeal are the following:

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.

[8] The Tribunal needs to be satisfied that the reasons for appeal fall within any of the above mentioned grounds of appeal and that at least one of the reasons has a reasonable chance of success, before leave can be granted.

[9] In his application for leave to appeal, the Applicant states that his hearing was handled poorly and that the General Division did not take into consideration any of his explanations regarding the termination of his employment. He wants a new member to hear his case because the General Division Member did not take into consideration his version of events.

[10] Unfortunately for the Applicant, an appeal to the Appeal Division of the Tribunal is not a de novo hearing, where a party can represent evidence and hope for a new favorable outcome.

[11] The General Division found from the Applicant’s own testimony that he had been warned but that he still continued to use the company vehicle and that he knew or ought to have known that it would cause his dismissal. The General Division also found that there was no evidence to support the Applicant’s claim that he had been dismissed because of his upcoming surgery.

[12] The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not identified any errors of jurisdiction or any failure by the General Division to observe a principle of natural justice.  It has not identified errors in law nor identified any erroneous findings of fact which the General Division may have made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it, in coming to its decision.

[13] After review of the appeal docket, the decision of the General Division and the arguments of the Applicant, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.

Conclusion

[14] The Application is refused.