On this page
Decision
[1] On July 13, 2015, 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 for 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:
- (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.
[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 application for leave to appeal, the Applicant states that the General Division member erred because he relied upon evidence that was mistranslated during the hearing by the interpreter.
[5] I find that this application raises appeal grounds that have a reasonable chance of success. For that reason, this application for leave to appeal must be granted.
[6] I note, however, that I will require actual evidence to substantiate this claim, including details of what parts of the interpretation were mistranslated, what the correct translation is, and in what way the alleged mistranslation was material to the outcome.