Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. The appeal will not proceed.

Overview

[2] The Applicant, F. P. (Claimant), quit his seasonal job as a skilled labourer and applied for employment insurance (EI) benefits.

[3] The Respondent, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that the Claimant voluntarily left his job without just cause and could not be paid benefits.

[4] The Claimant appealed this decision to the Tribunal’s General Division. He argued that he quit because a number of factors were creating an unsafe workplace. The General Division found that the Claimant did not have just cause to quit his job because there were reasonable alternatives to leaving when he did. It dismissed his appeal.

[5] The Claimant now wants to appeal the General Division decision to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. However, he needs permission for his appeal to move forward. He argues that the General Division made important errors of fact in its decision.

[6] I have to decide whether there is some reviewable error of the General Division on which the appeal might succeed. I am refusing leave to appeal because the Claimant’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success.

Issues

[7] The issues are:

1. a) Is there an arguable case that the General Division made important errors of fact?
2. b) Does the Claimant raise any other reviewable errors of the General Division upon which the appeal might succeed?

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

[8] The legal test that the Claimant needs to meet on an application for leave to appeal is a low one: Is there any arguable ground on which the appeal might succeed?^{Footnote 1}

[9] To decide this question, I focused on whether the General Division could have made one or more of the relevant errors (or grounds of appeal) listed in the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESD Act).^{Footnote 2}

[10] An appeal is not a rehearing of the original claim. Instead, I must decide whether the General Division:

1. a) failed to provide a fair process;
2. b) failed to decide an issue that it should have, or decided an issue that it should not have;
3. c) based its decision on an important factual error;^{Footnote 3} or
4. d) made an error in law.^{Footnote 4}

[11] Before the Claimant can move on to the next stage of the appeal, I have to be satisfied that there is a reasonable chance of success based on one or more of these grounds of appeal. A reasonable chance of success means that the Claimant could argue his case and possibly win. I should also be aware of other possible grounds of appeal not precisely identified by the Claimant.^{Footnote 5}

There is no arguable case that the General Division erred

[12] In his application for leave to appeal, the Claimant argues that the General Division compared him to a firefighter, who would have proper gear and training. He says that he explained that the job had changed and so did his age. The risks to health increased over time and he was only provided with an air-conditioned truck to cool down in once.^{Footnote 6}

[13] The Claimant had argued at the General Division that the logbooks were being falsified. The General Division found that this was not credible.^{Footnote 7} In his application for leave to appeal, the Claimant says that he disagrees with the General Division’s finding that he was not telling the truth.^{Footnote 8}

[14] The law says that a person has just cause for voluntarily leaving their job if, having regard to all the circumstances, they had no reasonable alternative to quitting. The law provides a list of relevant circumstances, including working conditions that constitute a danger to health and safety.^{Footnote 9}

[15] The Claimant worked seasonally for approximately 15 years. His work involved line painting on roads and other related tasks.^{Footnote 10} In the year that he quit, the Claimant said that his work required him to spend more time standing on asphalt in extreme heat. He suffered from heat stroke twice.^{Footnote 11}

[16] The Claimant also said that other employees were required to complete logbooks reporting the number of hours they spent driving. He said that the employer made the driver lie so they could drive more hours, and this resulted in drivers falling asleep and causing a risk to his safety.^{Footnote 12}

[17] The General Division had to decide whether the Claimant left his job without just cause. It considered the Claimant’s arguments that he was forced to work in extreme heat and that the employer made other employees underreport the hours that they were driving in their logbooks.

[18] The General Division considered whether the working conditions constituted a danger to the Claimant’s health and safety. It found that the Claimant has returned to this seasonal work for many years and was aware of the risks inherent in road work during the summer.^{Footnote 13} While the conditions may have been worse in the year he quit, the General Division found that they did not present a danger to the Claimant’s health and safety.^{Footnote 14}

[19] The General Division did not find the Claimant’s testimony concerning the falsifying of logbooks to be credible. It explained it’s reasons for this finding.^{Footnote 15}

[20] The General Division then considered whether the Claimant had reasonable alternatives to quitting his job when he did. It found that there was no just cause because a reasonable alternative to leaving for the Claimant was to find another job before he quit.^{Footnote 16}

[21] The General Division also found that the Claimant could have refused work that was unsafe.^{Footnote 17} He testified that this is what he had planned to do if he felt at risk during the two week notice period that he worked.^{Footnote 18}

[22] The Claimant’s arguments do not have a reasonable chance of success. The General Division did not compare the Claimant’s circumstances to that of a firefighter. It used this as an example to illustrate that different jobs come with different risks and that some known risks are accepted depending on the nature of the job.^{Footnote 19}

[23] The General Division acknowledged and considered the Claimant’s arguments that the job had changed in the year that he quit. There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of fact about any of its key findings. I have reviewed the file and examined the General Division decision.^{Footnote 20} I did not find any evidence that it might have ignored or misinterpreted.

[24] The General Division stated and applied the law correctly when it decided that the Claimant did not have just cause to leave his job. It did not agree with the Claimant and explained, with reference to the evidence, why it did not agree.

[25] I cannot reweigh the evidence in order to come to a different conclusion more favourable to the Claimant. The Appeal Division has a limited role, so I cannot intervene in order to reweigh the evidence about the application of settled legal principles to the facts of the case.^{Footnote 21}

[26] Aside from the Claimant’s arguments, I have also considered the other grounds of appeal. The Claimant has not pointed to any procedural unfairness on the part of the General Division and I see no evidence of procedural unfairness. There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of jurisdiction or an error of law.

[27] The Claimant has not identified any errors of the General Division upon which the appeal might succeed. As a result, I am refusing leave to appeal.

Conclusion

[28] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed.