Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision and reasons

Decision

[1] The Tribunal refuses leave to appeal to the Appeal Division.

Overview

[2] The Applicant, D. C. (Claimant), made an initial claim for regular Employment Insurance (EI) benefits, stating that he had quit his employment. The Claimant stated that he had voluntarily left his employment because of the unfair delegation of work, health concerns, harassment, and illegal practices by the employer.

[3] The Respondent, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission), informed the Claimant that it were unable to pay him regular EI benefits because he had voluntarily left his employment without just cause, within the meaning of the Employment Insurance Act. The Claimant requested that the Commission reconsider its decision; however, it maintained its original decision. The Claimant appealed the Commission decision to the General Division.

[4] The General Division found that the Claimant had quit his job and that he had reasonable alternatives to quitting his employment, which included consulting a doctor, looking for alternate employment, and inquiring with the Ministry of Labour before leaving his employment.

[5] The Claimant now seeks leave to appeal the General Division’s decision to the Appeal Division. He reiterates the facts that he presented to the General Division.

[6] On September 18, 2018, the Tribunal sent a letter to the Claimant asking him to explain his grounds of appeal in detail. He was also advised that it was not sufficient to simply repeat what he had said before the General Division. The Claimant did not reply to the Tribunal’s request within the time given.

[7] The Tribunal must decide whether the General Division has made a reviewable error based on which the appeal might succeed.

[8] The Tribunal refuses leave to appeal because the Claimant’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success.

Issue

[9] Does the Claimant’s appeal have a reasonable chance of success based on a reviewable error made by the General Division?

Analysis

[10] Subsection 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESD Act) specifies the only grounds of appeal of a General Division decision. These reviewable errors are that the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction; erred in law in making its decision, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; or based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it had made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.

[11] An application for leave to appeal is a preliminary step to a hearing on the merits. It is an initial hurdle for the Claimant to meet, but it is lower than the one that must be met on the hearing of the appeal on the merits. At the leave to appeal stage, the Claimant does not have to prove his case; he must instead establish that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success based on a reviewable error. In other words, the Claimant must show that there is arguably some reviewable error based on which the appeal might succeed.

[12] Therefore, before leave can be granted, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the reasons for appeal fall within any of the above-mentioned grounds of appeal and that at least one of the reasons has a reasonable chance of success.

[13] This means that the Tribunal must be in a position to determine, in accordance with subsection 58(1) of the DESD Act, whether there is an issue of natural justice, jurisdiction, law, or fact that may lead to the setting aside of the General Division decision under review.

Issue: Does the Claimant’s appeal have a reasonable chance of success based on a reviewable error made by the General Division?

[14] In his application for leave to appeal, the Claimant reiterates the facts that he presented to the General Division.^{Footnote 1} He states that he voluntarily left his employment because of the unfair delegation of work, health concerns, harassment, and illegal practices by the employer.

[15] The General Division found that the Claimant had quit his job and that he had reasonable alternatives to quitting his employment, which included consulting a doctor, looking for alternate employment, and asking the Ministry of Labour before leaving his employment.

[16] Unfortunately for the Claimant, an appeal to the Appeal Division of the Tribunal is not a new hearing, where a party can re-present their evidence and hope for a new favourable outcome.

[17] In his application for leave to appeal, the Claimant has not identified any reviewable errors such as a failure to exercise jurisdiction or any failure by the General Division to observe a principle of natural justice. He has not identified errors in law, nor has he identified any erroneous findings of fact that the General Division may have made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it when coming to its decision.

[18] For the above-mentioned reasons, after reviewing the docket of appeal and the General Division decision, and considering the Claimant’s arguments in support of his request for leave to appeal, the Tribunal finds that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success.

Conclusion

[19] The Tribunal refuses leave to appeal to the Appeal Division.