Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision and reasons

Decision

[1] The appeal is allowed.

Overview

[2] A. S. is the Claimant in this case. She applied for and received Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits. Later, however, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission decided that she should never have received those benefits because she voluntarily left a job without just cause.^{Footnote 1} As a result, the Commission said that it had overpaid the Claimant by more than $15,400, and that she should repay this amount.

[3] The Claimant challenged the Commission’s decision, but the Tribunal’s General Division dismissed her appeal. The Claimant is now appealing the General Division decision to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division.

[4] After my leave to appeal decision, the Commission accepted that the General Division breached the principles of natural justice in this case.^{Footnote 2} The Commission also accepted that the General Division decision contains errors of law and important errors concerning the facts of the case. As a result, the Commission recommended that I allow the appeal and return the file to the General Division for a new hearing.

[5] I agree with the Commission’s recommendation. These are the reasons for my decision.

Analysis

[6] The General Division breached the principles of natural justice in this case.

[7] This case engages the principles of natural justice because the Claimant says that she was unable to present her case fully. The courts have decided that tribunals like this one have an obligation to ensure that they conduct hearings fairly and that that duty can be especially important when a party has no legal representation.^{Footnote 3}

[8] In this case, the Claimant told the General Division that she would have a witness at the hearing. She also said that she wanted to file the statement of another witness who was out of the country during the hearing.^{Footnote 4}

[9] Despite this, and regardless of the Claimant’s limited abilities in English, the hearing lasted less than 20 minutes. During that time, the General Division member asked nothing about the Claimant’s witness or the witness statement that she said she would file in support of her case.

[10] By acting in this way, the Commission accepts that the General Division breached a principle of natural justice. The Commission also accepts that the General Division decision contains legal errors and important errors concerning the facts of the case. I agree with the Commission’s submissions on these points.

[11] Based on these errors, the Commission recommends that I allow the appeal and return the file to the General Division for it to hold a new hearing.^{Footnote 5} The Claimant has not opposed the Commission’s recommendation. Indeed, I accept it as appropriate in this case.

[12] In addition, I am directing the General Division to hold a pre-hearing conference in this case. At that pre-hearing conference, the General Division will provide the Claimant with any information that fairness requires, especially concerning the participation of potential witnesses (either orally at the second hearing or by using written statements).

Conclusion

[13] For the reasons described above, I am allowing the appeal and returning the file to the General Division for reconsideration and for a new hearing. I am also directing the General Division to hold a pre-hearing conference in this case. I am hopeful that this pre-hearing conference will give the Claimant a better chance of fully presenting her case.