Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

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

[3] The Claimant had not filed Employment Insurance biweekly reports on time. The General Division found that the Claimant had not shown good cause for the delay in claiming Employment Insurance benefits. In other words, he had not given an explanation that the law accepts. As a result, his claims could not be treated as though he had made them earlier.

[4] The Claimant argues that he had good cause. He argues that the General Division overlooked important evidence that showed that he had good cause. He says that he was sick and unable to fill out his reports. He says that the General Division failed to consider this evidence.

[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.

Issue

[7] Is there an arguable case that the General Division overlooked evidence that showed that the Claimant had good cause?

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} For these types of factual errors, the General Division had to have based its decision on an error that it made in a perverse or capricious manner, or without regard for the evidence before it.^{Footnote 4}

The Claimant does not have an arguable case that the General Division overlooked evidence that showed he had good cause

[9] The Claimant does not have an arguable case that the General Division overlooked evidence that showed he had good cause.

[10] The Claimant says that he was sick and unable to fill out his reports, but that the General Division failed to consider this evidence.

[11] If the claims are to be backdated so they are treated as if the Claimant made them on time, the Claimant would have had to show good cause for the entire period of the delay—from March 26, 2023, to May 12, 2023.

[12] However, I was unable to locate any evidence that showed that the Claimant was sick and unable to fill out his reports, either for the entire period of the delay, or at any time during this period.

[13] When speaking with the Commission (Commission), the Claimant did not mention his health or any sickness. Similarly, when the Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider its decision and when he filed his Notice of Appeal with the General Division, he did not also mention his health or any sickness.

[14] In fact, when the General Division asked the Claimant whether he might have been hospitalized or sick, the Claimant denied that he had been hospitalized. He also testified that there was, “nothing that physically hindered [him] from calling or talking to [Employment Insurance].”^{Footnote 5}

[15] Until now, the Claimant has not suggested that he was unable to complete the reports for any reason, other than the fact that he had lost his access code and could not locate it.

[16] The General Division could only base its decision on the evidence before it. There simply was no evidence that suggested that the Claimant was unable to complete any reports because of illness. Therefore, I am not satisfied that there is an arguable case that the General Division overlooked evidence that showed that the Claimant had good cause owing to illness.

[17] Finally, although the Appeal Division does not accept new evidence, I note that the Claimant has not attempted to produce any evidence that might show he was unwell during the period of the delay. It would seem that the Claimant would have had to produce some evidence to support his claims that illness prevented him from being able to file timely reports.

Conclusion

[18] I am not satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not be going ahead.