Table of contents
Reasons and 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 (DESDA) 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 DESDA also states that leave to appeal is to be refused if the appeal has “no reasonable chance of success.”
[4] This case involves whether or not the Applicant knowingly made a false statement to the Commission.
[5] In his initial application, the Applicant repeated the submission he had previously made to the General Division member that his false statements were the result of an honest mistake, but did not set out a ground of appeal with a reasonable chance of success.
[6] Because of this, and to ensure that the Applicant had every opportunity to make his case in full, I asked Tribunal staff to 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 DESDA and provided concrete examples. The Tribunal letter also noted that if this was not done, the application could be refused without further notice.
[7] The Applicant responded by repeating once again that he had made an honest mistake. He asked that I remove the penalty that had been assessed against him.
[8] The Commission’s initial determination was that the Applicant knowingly made a false statement because he received vacation pay that he did not declare, even though he was specifically asked if he had received any moneys during the relevant reporting period. In her decision, the General Division member considered the law and the facts, including the binding jurisprudence and the Applicant’s testimony, and ruled against him.
[9] It is clear to me that the Applicant disagrees with this conclusion. However, it is equally clear that this application is a request that I rehear his case and come to a conclusion more favourable to him.
[10] This I cannot do.
[11] The role of the Appeal Division is to determine if a reviewable error set out in subsection 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 rehear the case de novo.
[12] In order to have a reasonable chance of success, an applicant must explain in some detail how, in their view, at least one reviewable error set out in the DESDA has been made. Since the Applicant has 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.