Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision and reasons

Decision

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

Overview

[2] The Applicant, J. M. (Claimant), left her job to return to her home in another province. She applied for Employment Insurance benefits, but the Respondent, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission), denied her claim on the basis that she voluntarily left her employment without just cause. The Commission maintained this decision on reconsideration, and the Claimant appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal. The General Division dismissed her claim, and she now applies to the Appeal Division for leave to appeal.

[3] The Claimant has no reasonable chance of success. She has not identified how the General Division failed to observe any principle of natural justice or how it erred in law, and she has not identified any evidence that the General Division ignored or misunderstood.

Issue

[4] Is there an arguable case that that the General Division erred by failing to observe a principle of natural justice or by acting beyond or refusing to exercise its jurisdiction, that it erred in law, or that it erred by basing its decision on an erroneous finding of fact?

Analysis

[5] The Appeal Division may intervene in a decision of the General Division only if it can find that the General Division has made one of the types of errors described by the “grounds of appeal” in section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESD Act).

[6] The grounds of appeal are as follows:

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.

[7] To grant this application for leave and allow the appeal process to move forward, I must find that there is a reasonable chance of success on one or more grounds of appeal. A reasonable chance of success has been equated to an arguable case.^{Footnote 1}

Is there an arguable case that the General Division erred by failing to observe a principle of natural justice or by acting beyond or refusing to exercise its jurisdiction, that it erred in law, or that it erred by basing its decision on an erroneous finding of fact?

[8] The Claimant disagrees with the denial of her claim and states that she believes she should have qualified for benefits. Her stated reasons for leaving her employment include a desire to return to her home province and a need to be near friends and family.^{Footnote 2}

[9] However, the Claimant did not select any ground of appeal in her application for leave to appeal.  Furthermore, her reasons for appeal do not suggest that she believes the General Division process was unfair, that the General Division erred in law, or that it misunderstood or ignored evidence.

[10] For the General Division to have concluded that the Claimant qualified for benefits, it would have to have found that the Claimant’s reasons for leaving constituted “just cause,” as per this term’s meaning under the Employment Insurance Act (EI Act). As the General Division stated, “just cause” would mean that the Claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving.

[11] The General Division found that that it would have been reasonable for the Claimant to have made some effort to find other employment before quitting. The Claimant may believe that she had no choice but to leave her job, but her bare disagreement with the General Division’s finding does not establish a ground of appeal under section 58(1) of the DESD Act.^{Footnote 3}

[12] I cannot reweigh the evidence and substitute my judgment for that of the General Division.^{Footnote 4} Furthermore, determining the question of whether the Claimant had reasonable alternatives to quitting requires the application of settled principles of law to the particular facts of the case. It is therefore a question of mixed fact and law. The Federal Court of Appeal recently confirmed that the Appeal Division has no jurisdiction to intervene in questions of mixed fact and law.^{Footnote 5}

[13] I can certainly appreciate that the Claimant grew tired of working so far from home, and I accept that she had a good reason for leaving her employment. However, good cause is not the same as “just cause” under the EI Act.^{Footnote 6} The General Division was required to fairly find the facts based on the evidence, to apply the law to the facts, and to reach a conclusion on the issues before it. I have a different role as an Appeal Division member. I am required to determine whether the Claimant has raised an arguable case that the General Division made one of the errors set out under section 58(1) of the DESD Act. I am unable to consider any other grounds of appeal.^{Footnote 7}

[14] Following the direction of the Federal Court,^{Footnote 8} I have reviewed the record to determine whether there was any evidence that the General Division ignored or misunderstood that might give rise to an arguable case that the General Division reached an erroneous finding of fact. However, I have been unable to identify any instance of this.

[15] Unfortunately for the Claimant, there is no arguable case that the General Division erred; the Claimant has no reasonable chance of success on appeal.

Conclusion

[16] The application for leave to appeal is refused.