Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] S. N. is the Claimant in this case. He worked as a nurse. When he stopped working, he applied for Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits.

[3] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that he could not get EI regular benefits because he was dismissed from his job due to misconduct.^{Footnote 1}

[4] The General Division came to the same conclusion.^{Footnote 2} It decided that the Claimant did not adequately document client care over a six-day period and that amounted to misconduct, resulting in his dismissal. This meant that he was not entitled to get EI regular benefits.^{Footnote 3}

[5] The Claimant is now asking for permission to appeal the General Division decision to the Appeal Division.^{Footnote 4} He argues that the General Division didn’t follow procedural fairness because there was no act of negligence that resulted in his dismissal.^{Footnote 5}

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

Issue

[7] Is there an arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow procedural fairness?

Analysis

[8] An appeal can proceed only if the Appeal Division gives permission to appeal.^{Footnote 7}

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

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

• 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.

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

[11] In the Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division, he says that the General Division didn’t follow procedural fairness.^{Footnote 11} Specifically, he argues that there was no act of negligence that resulted in his dismissal.

[12] If the General Division didn’t follow a fair process then I can intervene.^{Footnote 12}

It is not arguable that the General Division didn’t follow procedural fairness

[13] The Claimant’s argument to the Appeal Division points to a disagreement with the outcome. He appears to disagree with the General Division’s finding that his conduct resulted in his dismissal.

[14] The General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal and decided that the Claimant was disqualified from receiving EI regular benefits for the following reasons:^{Footnote 13}

• The Claimant was dismissed from his job as a nurse because he did not document client information over a six-day period from December 29, 2021 to January 3, 2022.^{Footnote 14}
• It found that documenting client information was a requirement of his job and was one of the reasons he was dismissed.^{Footnote 15} It relied on a termination letter issued by his employer.^{Footnote 16}
• It said that the Claimant admitted the conduct, specifically that he was lagging behind in documenting client care.^{Footnote 17} This was also consistent with his testimony at the General Division hearing.^{Footnote 18}
• It decided that the Claimant knew this omission violated the employer’s policy and could jeopardize his employment.^{Footnote 19} This was also consistent with his testimony at the General Division hearing.^{Footnote 20}
• It agreed that the Claimant was not told he was barred from the clinic of all purposes, so this particular conduct was not misconduct.^{Footnote 21}

[15] I listened to the audio recording from the General Division hearing, reviewed the General Division decision and file. I see no evidence of any procedural unfairness.

[16] The file shows that the Claimant got notice of the hearing. He asked to reschedule the hearing date twice because he was unavailable and his request was granted.^{Footnote 22} The Claimant asked for a videoconference hearing and the hearing was held by videoconference.

[17] The hearing recording shows that the General Division gave the Claimant options on how he wanted to present his case. When the Claimant said that he prepared a written statement he wanted to read at the hearing, the General Division allowed him to read it.^{Footnote 23}

[18] The hearing recording also shows that the General Division listened to the Claimant and asked relevant and clarifying questions throughout the hearing.

[19] While the Claimant might disagree with the General Division’s findings and conclusion, it doesn’t mean it was procedurally unfair.

[20] An appeal to the Appeal Division of the Tribunal is not a new hearing. I cannot reweigh the evidence in order to get a different conclusion that is more favourable for the Claimant.^{Footnote 24}

[21] So, it is not arguable that the General Division didn’t follow procedural fairness. There is no reasonable chance of success on this ground.

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

[22] As noted above, I listened to the General Division recording, reviewed the General Division decision and file to see if there were any other types of errors.^{Footnote 25} However, I did not find any relevant evidence that the General Division might have ignored or misinterpreted. As well, the General Division applied the relevant section in law and applicable case law.

Conclusion

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