Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] The Applicant, S. P. (Claimant), applied for employment insurance (EI) maternity and parental benefits. The Respondent, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) said that the Claimant had not worked enough hours to qualify for benefits.

[3] The Claimant appealed the Commission’s decision to the Tribunal’s General Division. The General Division dismissed the appeal. It found that the Claimant had worked 458 hours in her qualifying period but needed 600 insurable hours to qualify for benefits.

[4] The Claimant is now asking to appeal the General Division decision to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. However, she needs permission for her appeal to move forward. The Claimant says that she was forced to go off work early. If she had been able to work until her due date, she would have accumulated enough hours to qualify for benefits.

[5] I have to decide whether there is some reviewable error of the General Division on which the appeal might succeed. I am refusing leave to appeal because the Claimant’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success.

Issue

[6] Does the Claimant raise any reviewable errors by the General Division that have a reasonable chance of success?

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

[7] The legal test that the Claimant needs to meet on an application for leave to appeal is a low one: Is there any arguable ground on which the appeal might succeed?^{Footnote 1}

[8] To decide this question, I focused on whether the General Division could have made one or more of the relevant errors (or grounds of appeal) listed in the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESD Act).^{Footnote 2}

[9] An appeal is not a rehearing of the original claim. Instead, I must decide whether the General Division:

1. a) failed to provide a fair process;
2. b) failed to decide an issue that it should have, or decided an issue that it should not have;
3. c) based its decision on an important factual error;^{Footnote 3} or
4. d) made an error in law.^{Footnote 4}

[10] Before the Claimant can move on to the next stage of the appeal, I have to be satisfied that there is a reasonable chance of success based on one or more of these grounds of appeal. A reasonable chance of success means that the Claimant could argue her case and possibly win. I should also be aware of other possible grounds of appeal not precisely identified by the Claimant.^{Footnote 5}

The General Division decision

[11] The General Division considered the number of hours that the Claimant required in order to qualify for maternity and parental benefits. It found that she needed to have worked 600 hours in her qualifying period.^{Footnote 6}

[12] The General Division then considered what the qualifying period was for the Claimant. It recognized that the Commission had extended the Claimant’s qualifying period by seven weeks to account for a period that she was unable to work due to illness. This meant that the Claimant’s qualifying period was from March 13, 2022 to April 29, 2023.^{Footnote 7}

[13] The General Division considered the hours recorded on the Claimant’s Records of Employment and found that the Claimant had worked 458 hours in her qualifying period.^{Footnote 8} Because the Claimant had not worked 600 hours, the General Division found that she does not qualify for benefits.^{Footnote 9}

The General Division did not make any reviewable errors

[14] The Claimant says that the General Division based its decision on the fact that she did not have enough hours. She says that she had a doctor’s note that proved she had to go off work early. The Claimant argues that she would have earned enough hours if she had not been taken off work early by her doctor.^{Footnote 10}

[15] The Claimant’s arguments do not have a reasonable chance of success and do not raise any reviewable errors by the General Division. The General Division properly considered the Claimant’s qualifying period and made no errors when it determined the number of insurable hours the Claimant had accumulated.

[16] The General Division acknowledged that the Claimant was put off work by her doctor. It noted the Claimant’s position that she would have worked enough hours if she had not had to leave work.^{Footnote 11}

[17] The General Division took all relevant facts into consideration. It properly considered and applied the law when it found that the Claimant did not qualify for benefits.

[18] I find that there is no arguable case that the General Division erred. Aside from the Claimant’s arguments, I have also considered the other grounds of appeal. The Claimant has not pointed to any errors of law or jurisdiction, and I have not identified any such errors. There is no arguable case that the General Division failed to provide a fair process or based its decision on factual errors.

[19] The Claimant has not identified any errors of the General Division upon which the appeal might succeed. As a result, I am refusing leave to appeal.

Conclusion

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