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 (DESDA) 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 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 had just cause to leave his employment.

[5] In his initial application, the Applicant repeated much of the evidence that he had previously given to the General Division member, 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 again repeating his version of events, and set out point by point his disagreements with the General Division decision. The Applicant also stated that the General Division member had breached his natural justice rights and erred in fact by not accepting his view of events.

[8] In his decision, the General Division member considered the law and the facts, including the binding jurisprudence and the Applicant’s testimony. I note that although the member did not ultimately accept the Applicant’s arguments, on the face of the record he did consider them in coming to his decision that the Applicant’s appeal could not succeed.

[9] It is clear to me that the Applicant disagrees with the General Division member’s conclusions. 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 DESDA 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 by the Tribunal, I have no choice but to find that this application for leave to appeal does not have a reasonable chance of success and must be refused.