Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] The Applicant, H. S. (Claimant), is seeking leave to appeal the General Division decision. The General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal.

[3] The General Division found the Claimant was disentitled from receiving Employment Insurance benefits from June 12 to 16, 2023, because he was outside Canada and did not meet any of the exceptions to being outside Canada.

[4] The Claimant acknowledges that he was outside Canada during this time. However, he argues that it is “impractical and restrictive” to require a claimant to remain in Canada once they have already secured employment and there is only a short time frame before they begin their new employment. He says the requirement to stay in Canada during the job search contradicts the principles of freedom of movement and personal choice. He says the Employment Insurance system is inherently unfair towards those in his situation.

[5] Before the Claimant can move ahead with his appeal, I have to decide whether the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. In other words, there has to be an arguable case.^{Footnote 1} If the appeal does not have a reasonable chance of success, this ends the matter.^{Footnote 2}

[6] I am not satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. Therefore, I am not giving permission to the Claimant to move ahead with his appeal.

Issues

[7] The issues are as follows:

1. a) Is there an arguable case that the General Division process was unfair?
2. b) Is there an arguable case that the General Division made a legal error about the Claimant’s disentitlement due to being outside Canada?

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

[8] Leave to appeal is refused if the Appeal Division is satisfied that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. A reasonable chance of success exists if the General Division may have made a jurisdictional, procedural, legal, or a certain type of factual error.^{Footnote 3}

The Claimant does not have an arguable case that the General Division process was unfair

[9] The Claimant does not have an arguable case that the General Division process was unfair. Procedural fairness is concerned with the fairness of the process. It is not concerned with whether a party feels that the result is fair.

[10] Parties before the General Division enjoy rights to certain procedural protections such as the right to be heard and to know the case against them, the right to timely notice of hearings, and the right to an unbiased decision-maker.

[11] As far as I can determine, the Claimant received all of the file materials. He received adequate notice of the hearing. The Respondent, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission), fully set out its position in its representations, so he should have known the case he had to meet. There is no indication either that the General Division did not give the Claimant a fair hearing or a reasonable chance to present his case. There is no indication of any bias. I am not satisfied that there is an arguable case that the General Division process was unfair.

[12] The Claimant says the Employment Insurance system restricts freedom of movement and personal choice. Although there were consequences for the Claimant, I note he was able to exercise his rights.

The Claimant does not have an arguable case that the General Division made a legal error about his disentitlement due to being outside Canada

[13] The Claimant does not have an arguable case that the General Division made a legal error about his disentitlement due to being outside Canada.

[14] The General Division properly interpreted section 37 of the Employment Insurance Act and section 55 of the Employment Insurance Regulations. These sections make it clear that claimants are not entitled to receive benefits for any period during which they are not in Canada, except as may otherwise be prescribed.

[15] As the General Division noted, there are circumstances when a claimant is not disentitled from receiving benefits when they are outside Canada. However, the Claimant did not fall into any of these exceptions. For instance, he was not outside Canada for the purposes of undergoing treatment at a hospital, medical clinic or similar facility outside Canada, medical treatment that is not readily or immediately available in his area of residence in Canada.

[16] The Claimant explained that he was outside Canada to propose to his girlfriend. This reason does not meet any of the exceptions to being outside Canada.

[17] I am not satisfied that the Claimant has an arguable case that the General Division made a legal error in its interpretation and application of the law.

Conclusion

[18] The appeal does not have a reasonable chance of success. Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed.