Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] I am refusing leave (permission) to appeal. The appeal will not proceed.

Overview

[2] H. F. is the Applicant. This appeal concerns her claim for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits so I will call her the Claimant.

[3] The Claimant applied for sick benefits because she was having problems with balance and could not work. She was concerned that it was not safe for her to live alone, so she went to stay with family in the U.S. while she waited for medical treatment. The Respondent, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission), told her she was not entitled to benefits while she was outside of Canada. The Claimant asked it to reconsider but it would not change its decision.

[4] The Claimant appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal, which dismissed her appeal. She is now asking for permission to appeal to the Appeal Division.

[5] I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal because her appeal does not have a reasonable chance of success. There is no arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact.

Issue

[6] The issue in this application is whether there is an arguable case that the General Division ignored or misunderstood the Claimant’s evidence, namely;

• That she was unable to work due to sickness.
• That driving alone or living alone put the Claimant at serious risk of injury.
• That she had no other option but to stay with her daughter in the U.S.

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

General Principles

[7] For the Claimant’s application for leave to appeal to succeed, her reasons for appealing would have to fit within the “grounds of appeal.” The grounds of appeal identify the kinds of errors that I can consider.

[8] I may consider only the following errors:

1. a) The General Division hearing process was not fair in some way.
2. b) The General Division did not decide an issue that it should have decided. Or, it decided something it did not have the power to decide (error of jurisdiction).
3. c) The General Division based its decision on an important error of fact.
4. d) The General Division made an error of law when making its decision.^{Footnote 1}

[9] To grant this application for leave and permit the appeal process to move forward, I must find that there is a reasonable chance of success on one or more grounds of appeal. Other court decisions have equated a reasonable chance of success to an “arguable case.”^{Footnote 2}

Important error of fact

[10] The Claimant argued that the General Division made an important error of fact by ignoring her circumstances.

[11] However, she has not really identified any evidence that the General Division ignored or misunderstood. The General Division decision acknowledged the Claimant’s evidence that she was experiencing a health issue that affected her balance, that her doctor had recommended against driving, that she lives alone and had fallen before, that her family was worried about her, and that this was why she stayed with her daughter.^{Footnote 3} It may not have noted specifically that she had “no other option”, but neither is it required to refer to each and every piece of evidence.^{Footnote 4}

[12] The Claimant may disagree with how the General Division weighed the evidence or with its conclusion, but I do not have the power to re-weigh or re-evaluate the evidence to reach a different conclusion.^{Footnote 5}

[13] In any event, I can only find that the General Division has made an important error of fact where it has based its decision on a finding of fact that overlooks or misunderstands relevant evidence, or on a finding that does not follow rationally from the evidence.^{Footnote 6}

[14] In this case, the General Division decided as it did because it was compelled to do so by the law. The Employment Insurance Act (EI Act) says that a Claimant is not entitled to benefits while outside of Canada except as provided in the Employment Insurance Regulations (Regulations).^{Footnote 7} The Regulations describe all of the exceptions.^{Footnote 8}

[15] The General Division based its decision on the fact that the Claimant did not offer evidence of any circumstances by which she might have claimed an exemption to the general disentitlement for claimants who are outside of Canada. The fact that she was sick, at risk of injury at home, or that she had nowhere else to go, do not satisfy any of the exceptions listed in the Regulations.

[16] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact. The Claimant’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success.

Conclusion

[17] I am refusing permission to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed.