Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision and Reasons

Decision

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

Overview

[2] The Applicant issued a Record of Employment (ROE) to B. M. indicating that she worked in a period in 2016 and was laid off. The Respondent, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission), started an investigation, which revealed that the Applicant was issuing ROEs to individuals who had not performed any work.

[3] The Commission determined that K. B. (K. B.), the owner of the Applicant company, issued the ROE to B. M. using false or misleading information, and the Commission imposed a penalty. The Applicant appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada.

[4] The General Division found that the Applicant had knowingly provided false information when K. B. completed B. M.’s ROE and that the Commission had exercised their discretion properly in determining the amount of the penalty.

[5] The Applicant filed the application for leave to appeal with the Appeal Division and submitted that the witness B. M. gave false statements and that she did work for the Applicant. The Applicant would like to provide another witness.

[6] The appeal does not have a reasonable chance of success because the Applicant simply repeats arguments made to the General Division and does not raise any reviewable errors.

Issue

[7] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an important error regarding the finding of facts, in particular that the Applicant knowingly made false statements?

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 move forward only if leave to appeal 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 on 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 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 made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.

[11] The Applicant submits that the witness B. M. made false statements because she did work for the Applicant during the time stated in the ROE. The Applicant asks to provide another witness to prove this assertion.

Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an important error regarding the finding of facts, in particular that the Applicant knowingly made false statements?

[12] I find that there is no arguable case that the General Division made an important error in its finding of facts.

[13] The Applicant argues that K. B. did not make false statements and that the witness B. M. did work for the Applicant in the period indicated in her ROE.

[14] The Applicant’s submissions before the General Division, which included each of these arguments, were noted in the General Division decision.^{Footnote 5} Essentially, the Applicant seeks to reargue the case based on the same arguments that were made at the General Division. A simple repetition of these arguments falls short of identifying a ground of appeal that is based on a reviewable error.

[15] The Applicant presented two witnesses at the General Division hearing (K. R. and K. B.) and would like to provide another witness at the Appeal Division to prove that B. M. did work for the company. However, new evidence is not a ground of appeal at the Appeal Division. The Applicant was responsible for presenting any evidence it had to the Commission and to the General Division before or at the hearing.

[16] The proposed new evidence was not in the record before the General Division. Therefore, the Applicant cannot argue that the General Division made a reviewable error by not considering it.

[17] I have read and considered the General Division decision and the documentary record. I find that the General Division did not overlook or misconstrue any important evidence.

[18] The appeal does not have a reasonable chance of success based on this ground.

Conclusion

[19] I am satisfied that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success, so the application for leave to appeal is refused.