Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision and Reasons

Decision

[1] The application for leave to appeal (Application) is refused.

Overview

[2] The Applicant, P. C., received Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. Subsequently, it was determined that the Applicant did not have enough hours to qualify for EI benefits.

[3] The Respondent, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission), determined, based on amended records of earnings (ROEs) supplied by the Applicant’s employer, that the Applicant had received benefits to which he was not entitled. This resulted in an overpayment of EI benefits, and the Applicant was required to repay the overpayment.

[4] The Applicant appealed the Respondent’s decision to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada. The General Division found that, due to an error in the ROEs, the Applicant’s EI claim had to be recalculated and he was not entitled to the benefits that he had received.

[5] The Applicant filed the Application with the Appeal Division and submitted that the General Division did not properly evaluate his case.

[6] I find that the appeal does not have a reasonable chance of success, because the Application simply repeats arguments made at the General Division and does not disclose any reviewable errors.

Issue

[7] Is there an argument that the General Division decision is based on serious errors in the findings of fact, because it failed to take into account parts of the evidence in the appeal record?

Analysis

[8] An applicant must seek leave to appeal a General Division decision. The Appeal Division must either grant or refuse leave to appeal, and an appeal can proceed only if leave is granted.^{Footnote 1}

[9] Before I can grant leave to appeal, I must decide whether the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. In other words, is there an arguable ground upon which the proposed appeal might succeed?^{Footnote 2}

[10] Leave to appeal is refused if the Appeal Division is satisfied that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success^{Footnote 3} based on a reviewable error.^{Footnote 4} The only reviewable errors are the following: the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction; it erred in law in making its decision, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; or it 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.

[11] The Applicant submits that the General Division did not consider his arguments that the overpayment resulted from his former employer having issued three ROEs and, since it is the employer’s error (and the Commission’s for relying on incorrect information), the employer and the Commission should be accountable for the consequences and not him.

Is there an argument that the General Division decision is based on serious errors in the findings of fact, because it failed to take into account parts of the evidence in the appeal record?

[12] The General Division took into account the evidence in the appeal record, which included documentary evidence, and the Applicant’s testimony at the hearing. However, the General Division found that the Applicant was paid EI benefits to which he was not entitled and he is obligated to repay them.

[13] The Applicant argues that he was not responsible for the error, the employer and the Commission were. Therefore, they should be held accountable for the consequences. For the most part, the Application repeats the Applicant’s evidence and submissions before the General Division.

[14] The General Division considered the Applicant’s arguments and the evidence on file. It considered his testimony and each of the reasons he advanced as demonstrating that the overpayment was someone else’s responsibility to repay. The General Division’s decision includes an analysis of each of the Applicant’s arguments.

[15] A simple repetition of the Applicant’s arguments falls short of disclosing a ground of appeal that is based on a reviewable error.

[16] With regard to the Applicant’s argument that the General Division erred in finding that “less than 12 months had passed since the date the payments were issued,”^{Footnote 5} this finding relates to the time between the payment of benefits to the Applicant and the date the Applicant was notified of the overpayment.^{Footnote 6} The Applicant received EI benefits between September 5, 2015, and January 20, 2016, and the Commission notified him of his overpayment in February 2016.^{Footnote 7} The Applicant was notified of the overpayment less than 12 months after the dates on which his EI payments were issued. The General Division did not base its decision on an erroneous finding of fact.

[17] I have read and considered the General Division decision and the documentary record. My review does not indicate that the General Division either overlooked or misconstrued important evidence. There is no suggestion that the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction, or that it erred in law in coming to its decision.

Conclusion

[19] The Application is refused.