Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision and reasons

Decision

[1] The Tribunal dismisses the appeal.

Overview

[2] The Appellant, A. A. (Claimant), received Employment Insurance benefits following a claim that went into effect in July 2014. On April 14, 2016, the Commission determined that the Claimant had made false statements because she had failed to report her earning from October 2014 to April 2015 properly. This led to an overpayment. The Commission imposed a penalty on the Claimant and issued her a notice of violation. In the decision, the Commission stated that the Claimant had 30 days to request a reconsideration of the decision. The Claimant filed her reconsideration request on August 10, 2017—483 days after the decision was communicated to her.

[3] The Commission refused the application for an extension of time to request a reconsideration of the April 14, 2016, decision because the Claimant had not provided a reasonable explanation for her delay or demonstrated a continuing intention to pursue her reconsideration request.

[4] The General Division found that the Commission had failed to exercise its discretion judicially by not considering the Claimant’s explanation. However, the General Division still found that the Claimant had not provided a reasonable explanation for her delay or demonstrated a continuing intention to pursue her reconsideration request.

[5] The Tribunal granted leave to appeal. The Claimant argues that the General Division erred in its interpretation of facts and in its interpretation of section 112 of the Employment Insurance Act (EI Act) and of section 1 of the Reconsideration Request Regulations.

[6] The Tribunal dismisses the Claimant’s appeal.

Issue

[7] Did the General Division err in its interpretation of facts and in its interpretation of section 112 of the EI Act and of section 1 of the Regulations?

Analysis

The Appeal Division’s mandate

[8] The Federal Court of Appeal has determined that the Appeal Division’s mandate is limited to the one conferred to it by sections 55 to 69 of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESD Act).^{Footnote 1}

[9] The Appeal Division acts as an administrative appeal tribunal for decisions rendered by the General Division and does not exercise a superintending power similar to that exercised by a higher court.

[10] Therefore, unless the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice, erred in law, 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, the Tribunal must dismiss the appeal.

Issue: Did the General Division err in its interpretation of the facts and in its interpretation of section 112 of the EI Act and of section 1 of the Regulations?

[11] The Claimant maintains that, after finding that her appeal had a reasonable chance of success and that the extension of time would not cause prejudice to the Commission, the General Division erred when it did not consider her reasonable explanation for the delay. Her explanation was that she received erroneous information from the collections agency to the effect that the Commission’s decision was final and that she had to pay the debt. She argues that the General Division also erred when it did not consider her continuing intention to request a reconsideration of the decision, which she would have done if not for that erroneous information.

[12] The Claimant did not file a reconsideration request until August 10, 2017—16 months after the April 14, 2016, decision, which she confirmed she received in April 2016.

[13] The Claimant acknowledged before the General Division that all of the information about possible options appears in the April 14, 2016, decision. This decision also states that she will need to accumulate more hours to be entitled to benefits. However, the Claimant stated that she did not pay attention to that information.^{Footnote 2} When she received the July 13, 2017, notice informing her that she needed to accumulate 1,164 hours to be entitled following the notice of violation, she realized the effect that the violation had on her file. She therefore filed her reconsideration request for the April 14, 2016, decision.

[14] After reviewing the Claimant’s evidence, the General Division found that the Commission had not exercised its discretion under section 112 of the EI Act and section 1 of the Regulations because it had not considered the Claimant’s explanation that she had received erroneous information from the Commission.

[15] However, the General Division did not assign weight to the Claimant’s testimony on this point because, after the Commission transferred her file to the collection department, she preferred to establish a debt repayment plan even though the right to request a reconsideration of the decision had been clearly explained in the April 14, 2016, decision that was communicated to her. The General Division found that the Claimant must have known that the decision was not final.

[16] Furthermore, the Tribunal notes that the Claimant did not hesitate at all to request a reconsideration of said decision after the July 13, 2017, notice informing her of the effect of a notice of violation.

[17] The General Division also determined that the Claimant had not demonstrated a continuing intention to pursue her appeal. It found that it was only when the Claimant received the July 13, 2017, decision informing her that she had not accumulated enough hours of insurable employment that she filed her reconsideration request for the April 14, 2016, decision.

[18] The General Division found that the Claimant had not provided a reasonable explanation for the delay or demonstrated a continuing intention to request a reconsideration of the April 14, 2016, decision. It found that it could not grant an extension of time to file a reconsideration request for the April 14, 2016, decision.

[19] The Tribunal is of the view that the Claimant has not identified any errors of jurisdiction or any failure by the General Division to observe a principle of natural justice. She has not identified errors in law or 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.

Conclusion

[20] For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal dismisses the appeal.