Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] On July 14, 2015, a member of the General Division dismissed the Applicant’s appeal from the previous determination of the Commission.  In due course, the Applicant filed an application requesting leave to appeal this decision 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] In his application the Applicant references natural justice, but does not articulate any particular error committed by the General Division member.  Instead, he states that while the decision “perhaps follow[ed] the letter of the Act”, it did not follow its intent. The Applicant also details certain allegations against his former employer, and appears to be asking that I re-hear his case and, in the interests of justice, render a decision more favourable to him even though this is contrary to the law.

[5] 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.

[6] It is not sufficient for an Applicant to plead that the General Division member was mistaken in his or her conclusions and ask the Appeal Division for a different outcome. In order to have a reasonable chance of success, the Applicant 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.