Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] I am refusing leave (permission) to appeal because the Claimant doesn’t have an arguable case. The appeal will not proceed.

Overview

[2] G. F. is the Claimant. He quit his job in British Columbia (BC) to relocate to Nova Scotia (NS), where his partner lives. He applied for Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that he did not qualify for benefits, because he voluntarily left his job without just cause.

[3] The Claimant appealed to the Tribunal’s General Division. The General Division dismissed the appeal.

[4] The Claimant wants to appeal the General Division decision to the Appeal Division. He needs permission for the appeal to move forward.

[5] I am refusing permission to appeal because the Claimant’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success.

Issues

[6] Is there an arguable case that the General Division based its decision on an important mistake about the Claimant’s intention to marry his partner?

[7] Is there an arguable case that the General Division based its decision on an important mistake about the Claimant’s job search efforts?

[8] Are there any other reasons for giving the Claimant permission to appeal?

Analysis

The test for getting permission to appeal

[9] An appeal can only proceed if the Appeal Division gives permission to appeal.^{Footnote 1} I must be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 2} This means that there must be some arguable ground upon which the appeal might succeed.^{Footnote 3}

[10] To meet this legal test, the Claimant must establish that the General Division may have made an error recognized by the law.^{Footnote 4} If the Claimant’s arguments do not deal with one of these specific errors, the appeal has no reasonable chance of success and I must refuse permission to appeal.^{Footnote 5}

The Claimant is arguing that the General Division based its decision on important mistakes about the facts of the case

[11] The Claimant submits that the General Division made an error of jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction means that the General Division didn’t decide an issue that it had to decide or decided an issue that it didn’t have the authority to decide.

[12] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of jurisdiction. The Claimant did not say how the General Division failed to consider an issue in his case, or that the General Division decided something it didn’t have the authority to decide.

[13] Instead, the Claimant is arguing that the General Division based its decision on important mistakes about the facts of his case. If there is a mistake, I can’t intervene just because the General Division made a mistake about a minor fact. Instead, the law only allows me to intervene if the General Division, “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.^{Footnote 6} A perverse or capricious finding of fact is one where the finding contradicts or isn’t supported by the evidence in the appeal.^{Footnote 7} This involves considering the following questions:

• Does the evidence squarely contradict one of the General Division’s key findings?
• Is there no evidence that could rationally support one of the General Division’s key findings?
• Did the General Division overlook critical evidence that contradicts one of its key findings?

[14] None of the Claimant’s allegations meet the criteria above in a way that would allow me to intervene in his case.

There’s no arguable case that the General Division based its decision on an important mistake about the Claimant’s intention to marry his partner

[15] The General Division decision says, “when the Claimant left his job, he and his now fiancée did not have immediate plans to marry.”^{Footnote 8} The Claimant argues that the General Division made a mistake by saying he and his partner did not have plans to marry at the time he relocated to Nova Scotia. The representative writes that when she and the Claimant, “got together in October 2021,” they discussed wanting to get married but agreed to wait until he moved.^{Footnote 9} She submitted the General Division finding was “speculative.”^{Footnote 10}

[16] The Claimant told the Commission that he quit his job to follow his partner to another location.^{Footnote 11} He said that they had been in a long-distance relationship since September 2021, were not married at the time he quit his job, had lived together for less than a year, and did not have a definite date set for getting married.^{Footnote 12}

[17] At the hearing on December 13, 2022, the Claimant said that he and his partner “didn’t have a set date yet.”^{Footnote 13} The representative explained that they became engaged in October 2022, but delayed setting a date for the marriage until after her daughter got married.^{Footnote 14}

[18] The Claimant’s argument has no reasonable chance of success. The General Division’s findings are clearly supported by the evidence. Plus, the General Division did not base its decision on the Claimant’s intention to marry his partner. In other words, the Claimant’s arguments do not meet the criteria needed for me to intervene in this case based on an error of fact.

[19] There is no arguable case that the General Division made a mistake relating to these facts.

There’s no arguable case that the General Division based its decision on an important mistake about the Claimant’s job search efforts

[20] The General Division decision says that the Claimant had reasonable alternatives to leaving his job, including “making an earnest effort to seek employment” in NS before leaving BC. The General Division adds that while the Claimant, “had some conversations…he did not apply for any jobs in [NS] prior to leaving work.”^{Footnote 15} The Claimant argues that he tried to get a job before moving to NS, and that he met the criteria for seeking suitable employment.^{Footnote 16}

[21] The General Division considered all the Claimant’s efforts to find work in NS but found them insufficient.^{Footnote 17} Specifically, the General Division considered the Claimant’s efforts to find a job, including where he searched for jobs, how he searched for jobs, and how many jobs he applied to before he quit his position.^{Footnote 18} It noted the Claimant’s efforts to find work with a meat producer in NS before he quit his job in BC, and said that he checked with another retailer as well and considered starting his own business. He also looked for jobs on the Job Bank and Career Beacon websites, created a resume, and asked friends and family if they knew of any available work, but he did not apply for any jobs in NS before he quit his position in BC and had not been promised a job by any NS employers.^{Footnote 19}

[22] The Claimant’s argument has no reasonable chance of success because the General Division’s conclusions are supported by the facts. The General Division was clearly aware of the Claimant’s efforts but found that he did not have just cause for quitting his job. It does not appear to have overlooked any critical evidence that could contradict its decision.

[23] There is no arguable case that the General Division made a mistake relating to these facts.

There are no other reasons for giving the Claimant permission to appeal

I don’t have jurisdiction over errors of mixed fact and law

[24] The representative argues that the Claimant met all the “criteria considered suitable for seeking employment prior to leaving a job.”^{Footnote 20} The list of criteria is taken from the Commission’s website, but is taken out of context. The information from the website reflects the criteria to determine suitable employment for the purposes of availability.^{Footnote 21} Availability is not an issue in this case.

[25] The General Division’s questions at the hearing and reasons in the decision show that it considered the Claimant’s job search and found that finding a job in NS before he quit his position in BC was a reasonable alternative to quitting when he did.

[26] I cannot consider whether there were errors in how the General Division applied the law to the specific facts before it.^{Footnote 22} This is called an error of mixed fact and law.

[27] The Claimant is unhappy with how the General Division weighed the evidence about his job search and the outcome of the decision. However, this complaint relates to a mixed error of fact and law, which is not one of the ones that I can consider.^{Footnote 23}

The General Division didn’t misinterpret or ignore relevant evidence

[28] In addition to the Claimant’s arguments, I also reviewed the documents in the file, examined the decision under appeal, and satisfied myself that the General Division did not misinterpret or fail to properly consider any relevant evidence.^{Footnote 24}

[29] The Tribunal must follow the law, including the Department of Employment and Social Development Act. It provides rules for appeals to the Appeal Division. The Appeal Division does not provide an opportunity for the parties to re-argue their case. It determines whether the General Division made an error under the law.

[30] There is no arguable case that the General Division made a reviewable error in this case.

Conclusion

[31] This appeal has no reasonable chance of success. For that reason, I’m refusing permission to appeal.

[32] This means that the appeal will not proceed.