Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] G. F. is the Applicant. I will call him the Claimant because this application is about his claim for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits.

[3] The Respondent, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission), refused to pay the Claimant EI benefits because it found that he had left his job without just cause. The Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider but it would not change its decision.

[4] The Claimant appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal. The General Division agreed with the Commission and dismissed his appeal. He is now asking the Appeal Division for leave to appeal the General Division decision.

[5] 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.

Issue

[6] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error of law by not considering that the Claimant was trying to find another job?

I am not granting leave to appeal to the Claimant

Analysis

General Principles

[7] For the Claimant’s application for leave to appeal to succeed, his reasons for appealing would have to fit within the “grounds of appeal.” 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.

[8] The grounds of appeal identify the kinds of errors that I can consider. 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] The Courts have equated a reasonable chance of success to an “arguable case.”^{Footnote 2}

Error of fact

[10] The Claimant argues that the General Division made an error of fact in finding that he did not seek other employment. He says that he did try to find work.

[11] The law says that a claimant may not receive EI benefits if they voluntarily leave their employment without “just cause.”^{Footnote 3} A claimant does not have just cause for leaving unless they have no reasonable alternatives to leaving, considering all the circumstances.^{Footnote 4}

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

[13] An error of fact is where the General Division bases its decision on a finding that ignores or misunderstands evidence, or does not follow rationally from the evidence.^{Footnote 5} The General Division based its decision on the finding that the Claimant had reasonable alternatives to leaving. One of the “reasonable alternatives” identified by the General Division was that he could have kept working until he found another job.

[14] The Claimant told the General Division member that he had looked for work before he quit. He testified that he had used his cellphone to look at Indeed and other job sites before the day he quit. He also testified that he had applied through the Calgary office of another mining operation, but had not heard back. He said that he didn’t know how to contact the hiring offices of other mining operations in the region.

[15] The General Division did not mention every one of his job search efforts, but it acknowledged that he was looking for other jobs before he decided to quit.^{Footnote 6} It made no finding that he had not looked for other work.

[16] The General Division found that the Claimant could have looked for work and continued working at the same time, as a reasonable alternative to quitting without having a job lined up. The Claimant did not identify any overlooked or misunderstood evidence that could have supported an argument that it would be unreasonable to expect him to continue working while he looked for some another job. He acknowledged that he could have used data on his phone to look for work, as he said he had been doing.

[17] In addition, there was no evidence that any of his concerns, including his concerns with unsafe procedures, were so urgent that he needed to leave immediately. The Claimant has never suggested that his concerns were urgent. In his request for reconsideration, the Claimant mainly spoke about the warnings he was given, and said that he expected to get fired if he got a third warning.

[18] When asked why he did not raise his safety concerns at the daily pre-work safety meetings, he said he thought “things were going good.” He added that he did not even know that the warning was a second warning.^{Footnote 7} He also said that he didn’t want to wait for his union representative to return from vacation because he was “frustrated.”^{Footnote 8}

[19] I appreciate that the Claimant is unrepresented. He may not have understood precisely what he should argue. Therefore, I searched the record for evidence that the General Division may have ignored or misunderstood, which could be relevant to its findings that he had reasonable alternatives to leaving ^{Footnote 9}

[20] The record does not suggest an argument that the General Division made an important error of fact. The General Division appears to have considered all of the circumstances suggested by the evidence and did not ignore or misunderstand any evidence related to those circumstances.

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

Conclusion

[22] I am refusing leave to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed.