Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] D. N. is the Claimant in this case. He worked at a hardware store for around 37 years. He quit his job in Ontario and moved to Newfoundland. He applied for Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits.

[3] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that he could not get EI benefits because he quit his job without just cause.^{Footnote 1} It said there were reasonable alternatives.

[4] The General Division came to the same conclusion.^{Footnote 2} It said that the Claimant did not have just cause to quit his job on the basis that he had to provide care to his wife or that the workplace was stressful and toxic. It said there were reasonable alternatives.

[5] The Claimant is now asking for permission to appeal the General Division decision to the Appeal Division.^{Footnote 3} He argues that the General Division made an error of fact because its decision did not give enough weight to the reasons that he left his job.^{Footnote 4}

[6] I am denying the Claimant’s request for permission to appeal because it has no reasonable chance of success.

Issue

[7] Is there an arguable case that the General Division based its decision on an important error of fact?

Analysis

[8] An appeal can proceed only if the Appeal Division gives permission to appeal.

[9] I must be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 5} This means that there must be some arguable ground upon which the appeal might succeed.^{Footnote 6}

[10] The possible grounds of appeal to the Appeal Division are that the General Division:

• proceeded in a way that was unfair;
• acted beyond its powers or refused to exercise those powers;
• made an error of law;
• based its decision on an important of fact.^{Footnote 7}

[11] For the Claimant’s appeal to proceed, I have to find that there is a reasonable chance of success on one of the grounds of appeal.

[12] An error of fact happens when the General Division has “based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it”.^{Footnote 8}

[13] This means that I can intervene if the General Division based its decision on an important mistake about the facts of the case. This involves considering some of the following questions:^{Footnote 9}

• 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] Not all errors of fact will allow me to intervene. For example, if the General Division made a mistake about a minor fact in this case that does not impact the outcome of the case, then I can’t intervene.

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

[15] There is no arguable case that the General Division based its decision on an important mistake about the facts of the case, so I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal. My reasons follow.

[16] The Claimant argues the General Division did not give enough weight to main reason he left his job of 37 years.^{Footnote 10} There were several reasons he left, but the most important one was to obtain additional family support for his disabled wife. He has family in Newfoundland who can help his wife while he works. Also, staying in Ontario meant that his wife would have been alone for extended periods of time. He cannot afford to pay for any help.

It is not arguable that the General Division made an error of fact

[17] The General Division had to decide whether the Claimant voluntarily left his job without just cause.

[18] The law says that just cause for voluntarily leaving a job exists if a person had no reasonable alternative to leaving, having regard to all the circumstances.^{Footnote 11} That can include an obligation to care for a member of the immediate family.^{Footnote 12} It can also include working conditions that constitute a danger to health and safety.^{Footnote 13}

[19] The General Division decided that the Claimant voluntarily left his job when he quit on August 25, 2022.^{Footnote 14} This was not disputed between the parties.  

[20] The General Division considered whether the Claimant had an obligation to care for his wife.^{Footnote 15} The Claimant told the General Division that his wife had 2-3 back surgeries the last few years and she could not do much for herself.^{Footnote 16}

[21] The General Division acknowledged that he was providing care for his wife, but said it was not urgent and that his wife did not require full time care.^{Footnote 17} Rather, it said that the Claimant just wanted additional support from family in Newfoundland.

[22] The General Division also considered whether the Claimant’s working conditions were a danger to his health or safety because of a stressful and toxic workplace.^{Footnote 18} The Claimant told the General Division at the hearing that the job was overwhelming, that he had to babysit the newer employees, load trucks, as well as do his own job.^{Footnote 19}

[23] The General Division ultimately decided that the Claimant did not have just cause to leave his job.^{Footnote 20} It said that he had two reasonable alternatives.^{Footnote 21} First, it said that the Claimant could have attempted to discuss concerns with his employer. It relied on a Court case that says claimants have to discuss their concerns with their employer before leaving his job.^{Footnote 22} Second, it said that he could have looked for another job prior to quitting.

[24] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of fact about any of its key findings. Specifically, the General Division did consider that the Claimant’s argument that had to care for his wife and why he moved to Newfoundland. It understood the Claimant’s evidence and was free to assign the weight based on the evidence it heard.

[25] The Appeal Division has a limited role. It is not a new hearing. I cannot intervene in order to reweigh the evidence so that there is a more favourable conclusion for him.^{Footnote 23}

[26] There are no other reasons for giving the Claimant permission to appeal. I reviewed the file, listened to the audio recording of the General Division hearing, and examined the General Division decision.^{Footnote 24} I did not find any evidence that it might have ignored or misinterpreted.

[27] So, there is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of fact.

Conclusion

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