Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] On February 23, 2016, 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 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 initial application the Applicant re-stated a number of the arguments he made before the General Division member, but did not allege any particular error as required by the Act.

[5] Noting that the Applicant’s appeal was not complete because the grounds of appeal were not sufficiently detailed, I directed Tribunal staff to contact the Applicant by letter and ask for further details. Specifically, the Tribunal letter asked that he provide full and detailed grounds of appeal as required by the Act, and provided him with examples of what constitutes grounds of appeal. The Tribunal letter also noted that if he did not do so, his application could be refused without further notice.

[6] The Applicant responded by clarifying that he was appealing against the General Division finding that he did not have just cause for leaving his employment. He then once again re-stated a number of arguments previously made to the General Division.

[7] I find that the Applicant’s submissions do not reveal a reviewable error allegedly made by the General Division member. They are essentially a blanket objection to the member’s findings and a request that I re-weigh the evidence and come to a different conclusion.

[8] This I cannot do.

[9] 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.

[10] 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.