Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] R. B. is the Claimant in this case. She worked for a bank. When she stopped working, she applied for Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits.

[3] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that she could not get EI regular benefits because she voluntarily left her job without just cause.^{Footnote 1} At the same time, the Commission also decided that she had not proven she was available for work.^{Footnote 2}

[4] The General Division came to the same conclusion.^{Footnote 3} It decided that the Claimant voluntarily left her job without just cause when she retired on December 30, 2022. As well, it found that she had not proven her availability for work from January 2, 2023 to March 31, 2023. Because of that, she could not be paid EI regular benefits.

[5] The Claimant is now asking for permission to appeal the General Division decision to the Appeal Division.^{Footnote 4} She argues that the General Division made an important error of fact because she could not seek other job opportunities as was too busy performing her current job at the same time.

[6] I am denying the Claimant’s request for permission to appeal because there is no reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 5}

Issue

[7] Is there an arguable that the General Division based its decision on an important an error of fact when it decided that the Claimant voluntarily left her job without just cause?

Analysis

[8] An appeal can proceed only if the Appeal Division gives permission to appeal.^{Footnote 6}

[9] I must be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 7} This means that there must be some arguable ground that the appeal might succeed.^{Footnote 8}

[10] The possible grounds of appeal to the Appeal Division are that the General Division:^{Footnote 9}

• 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 error of fact

[11] For the Claimant’s appeal to proceed to next steps, I have to find that there is a reasonable chance of success on one of the grounds of appeal.^{Footnote 10}

[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 11}

[13] This means that I can intervene if the General Division based its decision on an important mistake about the facts of the case. However, not all errors of fact will allow me to intervene. An error of fact needs to be important enough that the General Division relied on it to make a finding that impacted the outcome of the decision.

[14] This involves considering some of the following questions:^{Footnote 12}

• 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?

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

The Claimant says that the General Division made an important error of fact

[15] The Claimant argues that the General Division made an important error of fact. Specifically, she argues that she could not seek other job opportunities because she was too busy performing her current job at the same time.^{Footnote 13}

It is not arguable that the General Division based its decision an important error of fact

[16] There were two decisions made by the General Division.

[17] The General Division first decided that the Claimant didn’t have just cause to voluntarily leave her employment, so she was disqualified from getting EI benefits.^{Footnote 14} This followed by its decision on the Claimant’s availability finding that she had not proven her availability for work, so she also disentitled to EI regular benefits.^{Footnote 15}

[18] The Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division focuses only on the voluntary leave decision only, so that is what I will focus on.^{Footnote 16}

[19] 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.^{Footnote 17}

[20] There is a list of relevant circumstances to consider such as: a significant change in work duties and working conditions that constitute a danger to health or safety.^{Footnote 18}

[21] In this case, the General Division had to decide whether the Claimant had voluntarily left her job without just cause.^{Footnote 19}

[22] The General Division decided that the Claimant made a personal decision to retire from her job and in doing so, she had voluntarily left her job on December 30, 2022.^{Footnote 20} It concluded that there was no just cause and that she had reasonable alternatives.^{Footnote 21}

[23] The General Division considered the Claimant’s specific arguments about her circumstances.^{Footnote 22} Specifically, it considered whether there were significant changes to her work duties, workplace stress and intolerable working conditions.

[24] The General Division decided that there were no significant changes to her work duties.^{Footnote 23} It found that while she may have been overwhelmed and stressed when she quit her job, she had no supporting medical evidence to support that her job was endangering her health or that she needed to leave her job for health reasons.^{Footnote 24} It also decided that her working conditions were not manifestly intolerable, but that she made a personal decision to leave her job.^{Footnote 25}

[25] The General Division found that the Claimant had the following reasonable alternatives to leaving her job:^{Footnote 26}

• To speak with her employer when she was struggling with the technology and new procedures to ask for additional training and support.
• To speak with the employer if her workload was too heavy after the new hires and to ask for assistance.
• To ask the employer to transfer her to a different position.
• To continue working until she found suitable alternative employment elsewhere.
• To consult her doctor about the potential need for a leave of absence, or to quit her job for medical reasons.
• To speak with the employer and alert them to the level of stress was feeling and give the employer a chance to resolve her staffing and technology concerns.

[26] It is not arguable that the General Division made an important error of fact when it decided that the Claimant didn’t have just cause to leave her job for the following reasons.

[27] The Claimant has not pointed to any particular error of fact that the General Division made. Instead, her arguments to the Appeal Division simply restate her disagreement with one of the reasonable alternatives. Namely, that she was unable to find a less stressful job because she was too busy performing her current job at the same time.

[28] The Claimant is re-arguing her case because she disagrees with the General Division’s finding about the reasonable alternatives available to her.^{Footnote 27} However, the Appeal Division’s mandate is limited to determining whether the General Division made a specific type of error.^{Footnote 28}

[29] An appeal to the Appeal Division is not a new hearing. I cannot reweigh the evidence to come to a conclusion more favourable for the Claimant.^{Footnote 29}

[30] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of fact about any of its key findings.^{Footnote 30} I reviewed the file and listened to the recording from the General Division hearing. The evidence supports the General Division’s decision and findings. I did not find any key evidence that the General Division might have ignored or misinterpreted.^{Footnote 31}

Conclusion

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