Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] Previously, a member of the General Division dismissed the Applicant’s appeal. 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 (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 her initial application, the Applicant repeated many of the arguments she had already made to the General Division member, and stated that the member’s conclusions were unfair. She also repeated her view that she should have been believed, rather than her Employer.

[5] Because these initial submissions did not set out in what manner the General Division member was alleged to have erred, I asked that Tribunal staff contact the Applicant by letter to seek further details. Specifically, the Tribunal letter asked that the Applicant provide full and detailed grounds of appeal as required by the Act, and provided examples of what constitutes grounds of appeal. The Tribunal letter also noted that if this was not done, the application could be refused without further notice.

[6] She did not respond.

[7] I note that the Applicant’s allegations had already been expressed to the General Division member and that on the face of the record the General Division member’s decision did in fact consider those allegations. Instead of alleging a reviewable error, it appears to me that the Applicant is actually requesting that I re-weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion different than that reached by the member.

[8] 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.

[9] 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, even after having been prompted to do so by the Tribunal, I find that this application for leave to appeal does not have a reasonable chance of success and must be refused.