Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision and Reasons

Decision

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

Overview

[2] The Applicant, L. R. (Claimant), left her employment because she felt bullied by her employer and pressured to leave. She applied for Employment Insurance benefits but the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) denied her application, stating that she had left her employment without just cause.

[3] When the Claimant asked for a reconsideration, the Commission maintained its original decision. The Claimant appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal but the General Division dismissed her appeal. She now seeks leave to appeal to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division.

[4] The Claimant has no reasonable chance of success. She has not made out an arguable case that the General Division process was unfair, that it made an error of jurisdiction, or that it made an error of law or an important error of fact.

What grounds can i consider for the appeal?

[5] To allow the appeal process to move forward, I must find that there is a “reasonable chance of success” on one or more of the “grounds of appeal” found in the law. A reasonable chance of success means that there is a case that the Claimant could argue and possibly win.^{Footnote 1}

[6] “Grounds of appeal” means reasons for appealing. I am only allowed to consider whether the General Division made one of these types of errors:^{Footnote 2}

1. The General Division hearing process was not fair in some way.
2. The General Division did not decide an issue that it should have decided. Or, it decided something it did not have the power to decide.
3. The General Division made an error of law when making its decision.
4. The General Division based its decision on an important error of fact.

Issues

[7] In her original application to the Appeal Division, the Claimant’s arguments did not focus on any of the grounds of appeal that I may consider. As a result, the Appeal Division wrote to the Claimant on November 15, 2019, to explain the grounds of appeal to the Claimant and to ask her to show how the General Division made an error, or errors, related to any of the grounds. The Claimant responded on December 17, 2019, but she did not add anything to her earlier submissions. She said that her reasons for appealing the General Division decision were set out clearly in her letter of October 24, 2019.

Analysis

Fairness of the General Division process

[8] The General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal. I can understand that the Claimant believes that this was an unfair result. But to find the General Division decision to be unfair, I can only consider whether the General Division process was unfair. An unfair process would be one where the General Division member who made the decision showed bias, or where the Claimant did not have an opportunity to be heard, or to prepare and respond to the Commission’s evidence and position. The Claimant did not argue that the General Division process was unfair in this way.

[9] There is no arguable case that the General Division process was unfair.

Jurisdiction

[10] The General Division could only consider issues arising from the Commission’s reconsideration decision. Those issues were:

• whether the Claimant voluntarily left her employment, and;
• whether she left her employment without just cause. 

[11] I accept that the General Division reached a decision on each of the issues it was required to decide, and no others. I note that the Claimant did not specifically argue that the General Division made a decision that it was not authorized to make or that it failed to decide an issue that it was required to decide.

[12] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of jurisdiction.

Error of law

[13] The Employment Insurance Act (EI Act) says that a claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits if the claimant voluntarily leaves his or her employment without just cause.^{Footnote 3} The courts have said that a claimant “voluntarily” leaves when he or she has a choice to stay or to leave.^{Footnote 4} The General Division found that the Claimant had control over the decision to leave, which means that it accepted that she made a choice to leave. There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of law in deciding that she voluntarily left her employment.

[14] Under the EI Act, a claimant who voluntarily leaves may still qualify for benefits if the claimant has just cause for leaving. The EI Act says that a claimant must have no reasonable alternative to leaving to have “just cause” for leaving.^{Footnote 5} To decide if there was no reasonable alternative to leaving, the Commission must consider all the circumstances, including a list of circumstances that are set out in the EI Act.^{Footnote 6} The General Division set these tests out correctly.^{Footnote 7} There is no arguable case that the General Division misunderstood the legal tests.

[15] There is also no arguable case that the General Division failed to consider “all the circumstances”. The Claimant asserted that she left because she was bullied into leaving. This suggests the possibility that some of the circumstances specifically included in the EI Act may have been present.^{Footnote 8} If the General Division had accepted that the Claimant was “bullied into leaving,” this may have been assessed as “harassment”, or “undue pressure by an employer on a claimant to leave their employment.” Furthermore, the basis for her assertion that she was bullied into leaving is that many of her regular tasks had been shifted away from her. This could possibly have been a “significant change in work duties” - another listed circumstance.

[16] However—no matter whether any of the circumstances listed in the EI Act could be understood to describe the Claimant’s particular circumstances—it is apparent that the General Division considered the actual circumstances of the Claimant. The General Division understood that the Claimant left because she was upset with the employer’s decision to hire an accountant to take certain duties away from her. It also understood that she had difficulty with the long commute and wished to spend more time at home.^{Footnote 9}

[17] There is no arguable case that the General Division did not understand or consider the circumstances in which the Claimant left her job. Based on those particular circumstances, it concluded that the Claimant made a personal choice to leave her employment.

[18] The General Division acknowledged that the Claimant may have good reasons to quit, but found that it did not meet the definition of just cause under the EI Act. It found that the Claimant had the reasonable alternative of speaking to her employer to see if the employer could have mitigated or addressed her stressors at work.

[19] The Claimant also argued that she was entitled to benefits because she had paid Employment Insurance benefits for many years. However, a claimant who voluntarily leaves their employment may only qualify for Employment Insurance benefits if the claimant has just cause for leaving. Having paid into Employment Insurance is not relevant to the test, and it was not an error of law that the General Division would not allow her appeal on this basis.

[20] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of law. The General Division decision was consistent with section 29(c) of the EI Act and with the judicial interpretation of “voluntary leaving” and “just cause”, such as the Canada (Attorney General) v Laughland^{Footnote 10} decision to which the General Division referred.

Important error of fact

[21] The Claimant did not identify any evidence that was ignored or misunderstood on which the General Division based its findings of fact or its decision.

[22] However, in decisions such as Karadeolian v Canada (Attorney General),^{Footnote 11} the Federal Court has directed the Appeal Division to look beyond the stated grounds of appeal. Therefore, I have reviewed the appeal record searching for an arguable case that the General Division may have ignored or overlooked evidence, or made findings of fact that were inconsistent with the evidence. I have not found that the General Division made a finding of fact that was in error.

[23] The Claimant has no reasonable chance of success on appeal.

Conclusion

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