Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] Permission (leave) to appeal is refused. The appeal will not proceed.

Overview

[2] R. B. is the Claimant in this case. She applied for Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits. But the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission)^{Footnote 1} decided that the Claimant was not entitled to these benefits as of April 21, 2021, because she was not available for work.

[3] The Claimant appealed the Commission’s decision to this Tribunal’s General Division. It decided that the Claimant was available for work during the relevant period.

[4] The Commission now wants to appeal the General Division decision to the Appeal Division. Before this case can proceed, I must first decide whether to grant leave.

[5] The Commission argues that the General Division based its decision on an important mistake about the facts of the case. It also argues that the General Division made an error of law.

[6] I find that the Commission’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success. I have no choice, then, but to refuse leave to appeal.

Issue

[7] This decision focuses on the following issues:

1. a) Could the General Division have based its decision on an important mistake about the facts of the case when it found that the Claimant had made enough efforts to find a suitable job?
2. b) Could the General Division have made an error of law by ignoring the availability requirements of the law?

Analysis

[8] Appeal Division files follow a two-step process. This appeal is at step one: leave to appeal.

[9] The legal test that the Commission needs to meet at this step is a low one: Has it raised an arguable case on which the appeal might succeed?^{Footnote 2} If the appeal has no reasonable chance of success, then I must refuse leave to appeal.^{Footnote 3}

[10] To decide this question, I considered whether the General Division could have made an error that I can consider.^{Footnote 4}

The appeal has no reasonable chance of success

[11] To get EI regular benefits, the Claimant had to, among other things, be available for work.^{Footnote 5} Availability is assessed using three main factors.^{Footnote 6}

[12] The General Division considered these three factors and found that the Claimant was capable of and available for work but unable to find a suitable job.

The General Division did not base its decision on an important mistake about the facts of the case

[13] The Commission argues that the General Division made an error of fact when it found that the Claimant met the second factor: expressing the desire to go back to work by looking for a suitable job.

[14] The Commission says that the Claimant did not look for a job from April 2021 because she was going to start working for her usual employer again in July 2021.

[15] The General Division acknowledged the Commission’s concerns.^{Footnote 7} But it found that the Claimant had made enough efforts to find a suitable job. More specifically, the Claimant found a job with her usual employer and took steps to get a transfer.^{Footnote 8}

[16] The Commission’s arguments do not identify a specific error of fact. The Commission’s challenge is not based on evidence that the General Division ignored or misinterpreted.

[17] Instead, the Commission seems to disagree with the result in this case. It argues that the General Division decision is unreasonable given the evidence on file.^{Footnote 9}

[18] I find, then, that the Commission is asking me to reweigh the evidence. Or it is challenging the application of settled legal principles to the facts of this case. But I cannot consider these errors.^{Footnote 10}

[19] So, the Commission’s argument has no reasonable chance of success.

The General Division did not make an error of law

[20] The Commission also argues that the General Division ignored the availability requirements of the law.^{Footnote 11}

[21] Contrary to the Commission’s position, the General Division:

• summarized what the law requires concerning availability and referred to the relevant sections of the law^{Footnote 12}
• identified the three main factors used to assess availability^{Footnote 13}
• acknowledged the Claimant’s job search efforts and relied on court decisions in support of its conclusion that the Claimant was available for work^{Footnote 14}

[22] Again, I find that the Commission’s argument has no reasonable chance of success.

[23] Aside from the Commission’s arguments, I have reviewed the file and examined the General Division decision.^{Footnote 15}

[24] The evidence supports the General Division’s decision. I did not find evidence that the General Division might have ignored or misinterpreted. Finally, the Commission has not argued that the General Division acted unfairly in any way.

Conclusion

[25] I have concluded that the Commission’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success. I have no choice, then, but to refuse leave to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed.