Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] M. K. is the Applicant. This appeal concerns his claim for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits, so I will call him the Claimant.

[3] The Claimant’s employer asked him to sign a separation agreement to document that his employment was ending by mutual consent. The Claimant refused to sign the agreement and the employer dismissed him.

[4] The Commission originally disqualified the Claimant from receiving benefits, but it reconsidered that decision. In its reconsideration decision, it found that the employer did not dismiss the Claimant for misconduct. As a result, it changed its decision to say that the Claimant was not disqualified him from receiving EI benefits.

[5] The Claimant still had concerns with how the Commission had managed his claim, so he appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal. The General Division dismissed his appeal. It agreed with the Commission that the Claimant’s misconduct was not the reason the employer dismissed him. It also agreed that the Commission should not have disqualified the Claimant.

[6] The Claimant is now asking for permission to appeal the General Division decision to the Appeal Division.

[7] I am refusing leave to appeal. The Claimant has not made out an arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact, or any other error that I am authorized to consider.

Preliminary matters

[8] The Commission’s reconsideration decision was in the Claimant’s favour. Nonetheless, the Claimant appealed to the General Division. The General Division invited the Claimant to a case conference to confirm that he wanted to proceed. The Claimant did not attend the conference but sent a letter indicating that he wanted to continue with the appeal. As a result, the General Division considered his appeal, but dismissed it. It agreed with the Commission’s reconsideration decision.

[9] Like the General Division, I asked the Claimant to participate in a case conference to clarify why he was appealing. The General Division had dismissed his appeal, which meant that it upheld the Commission’s reconsideration decision. This decision was still in the Claimant’s favour.

[10] The Claimant did not want to have a case conference, and indicated he wished to pursue the appeal at the Appeal Division.

Issue

[11] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact?

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

General Principles

[12] For the Claimant’s application for leave to appeal to succeed, his 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.

[13] 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}

[14] 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}

Error of fact

[15] The Claimant did not assert that the General Division made any error of jurisdiction, or a mistake of law. However, he referred to evidence that he believed the General Division overlooked or misunderstood. So, I will consider whether the General Division made an important error of fact.

[16] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact.

[17] The General Division makes an important error of fact where it bases 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 3}

[18] The General Division has no jurisdiction or authority to consider issues that are not stated or implicit in the reconsideration decision. The reconsideration decision decided only that the Claimant was not disqualified from receiving benefits. It found that the employer did not dismiss him for misconduct.

[19] The General Division could only decide whether the Commission should have disqualified him from receiving benefits. This required it to make a finding of fact about whether the employer dismissed him for his misconduct. The General Division could not consider whether the Commission’s investigation and decision process was thorough or efficient, or treated him fairly.

[20] It is only an error for the General Division to overlook or misunderstand evidence, where that evidence is relevant to its decision. In other words, there must be a possibility that the “mishandled” evidence could affect a key finding on which the General Division based its decision.

[21] To move forward with this appeal, the Claimant would need an arguable case that the General Division could have found that the employer dismissed him for his misconduct if it had properly considered all the relevant evidence. I am not sure why he would want to argue this. He would lose his entitlement to benefits if his appeal were ultimately successful.

[22] Fortunately for the Claimant, he has not identified any evidence that the General Division ignored or misunderstood that could have resulted in a finding that the employer actually did dismiss him for misconduct.

[23] The Claimant’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success.

Conclusion

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

[25] The General Division decision stands. The Claimant is still not disqualified from receiving benefits.