Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] J. K. is the Claimant in this case. When he stopped working, he applied for Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits.

[3] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that a benefit period could not be established because he didn’t have enough hours of insurable employment to qualify for EI benefits.^{Footnote 1}

[4] The General Division concluded the same.^{Footnote 2} It said that he needed 700 hours of insurable employment to qualify for EI benefits, but only had 697 hours.

[5] The Claimant is now asking for permission to appeal the General Division decision to the Appeal Division.^{Footnote 3} He needs permission for the appeal to move forward.

[6] I am denying the Claimant’s request for permission to appeal because it has no reasonable chance of success.

Preliminary matter

[7] The Claimant sent the Tribunal an email on November 1, 2023.^{Footnote 4} He explained that he wanted to appeal the [General Division] decision and asked if there was someone who could make a fair and unbiased decision for a hard-working Canadian.

[8] The Tribunal sent the Claimant an email on January 12, 2024 asking for additional information about his appeal to the Appeal Division. The letter asked him to provide reasons for his appeal based on the types of errors that the Appeal Division could consider.^{Footnote 5}

[9] The Claimant responded saying that he was appealing the decision based on fairness and provided some additional reasons.^{Footnote 6}

Issue

[10] Is there an arguable case that the process at the General Division was unfair?

Analysis

[11] An appeal can proceed only if the Appeal Division gives permission to appeal.^{Footnote 7}

[12] I must be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 8} This means that there must be some arguable ground upon which the appeal might succeed.^{Footnote 9}

[13] I can only consider certain types of errors. I have to focus on whether the General Division could have made one or more of the relevant errors (this is called the “grounds of appeal”).^{Footnote 10}

[14] The possible grounds of appeal to the Appeal Division are that the General Division did one of the following:^{Footnote 11}

• proceeded in a way that was unfair
• acted beyond its powers or refused to exercise those powers
• made an error in law
• based its decision on an important error of fact

[15] For the appeal to proceed, I have to find that there is a reasonable chance of success on one of the grounds of appeal.^{Footnote 12}

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

The Claimant argues that the General Division’s decision was unfair

[16] The Claimant wrote that he is appealing the General Division decision based on fairness. He argues that he was short only 2 hours in order to get EI benefits.^{Footnote 13}

[17] Also, he explains that he was looking after his late Mother’s funeral at the time. He is asking for some compassion, fairness and an unbiased decision because he is a hard working Canadian.

There is no arguable case that the General Division acted unfairly or was biased

[18] Procedural fairness is about the fairness of the process. It includes procedural protections including the right to an unbiased decision-maker, the right of a party to be heard and to know the case against them and to be given an opportunity to respond.

[19] In other words, if the General Division proceeded in a manner that was unfair, then I can intervene.^{Footnote 14} 

[20] The General Division had to decide whether the Claimant’s benefit period could be established. In doing so, it had to decide if he had proven that he had enough hours of insurable employment during the qualifying period.^{Footnote 15}

[21] The General Division found that the Claimant needed a minimum 700 hours of insurable employment in order to qualify for EI regular benefits. It determined that he didn’t have enough hours because he only had 697 hours during the qualifying period (September 18, 2022 to April 1, 2023).^{Footnote 16} This was not disputed by the Claimant as he testified that he only had 697 hours during the qualifying period.^{Footnote 17}

[22] First, the Appeal Division’s mandate is limited to deciding whether the General Division might have made a reviewable error and not whether the result was unfair.^{Footnote 18}

[23] The Appeal Division does not provide an opportunity for the parties to re-argue their case in order to get a different outcome.

[24] Second, the General Division correctly stated that it had no authority to change the law, even though he was only short a few hours in order to establish a benefit period.^{Footnote 19}

[25] The General Division has to follow the Employment Insurance Act and decisions from the Court. The Federal Court of Appeal has already said that even if you are short one hour then it means you don’t meet the requirements.^{Footnote 20}

[26] This means that the General Division had no authority or discretion to grant EI benefits to the Claimant because he was only short a few hours and for compassionate reasons.

[27] The Claimant hasn’t pointed out how the General Division may have been biased, but he wrote in his appeal forms that he wants an unbiased decision.

[28] The General Division is an independent decision-making body and adjudicators are presumed to be impartial. An allegation of bias cannot rest on mere suspicion, pure conjecture, insinuations, or mere impressions.^{Footnote 21}

[29] I reviewed the file and listened to the audio recording from the General Division hearing.

[30] The hearing lasted 24 minutes. The audio recording shows that the Claimant had a full opportunity to present his case. The General Division explained the legal test to him.^{Footnote 22} It asked him questions throughout the hearing. The Claimant confirmed that he received the documents from the file, including the Commission’s arguments, so I am satisfied that he knew the case he had to meet.^{Footnote 23}

[31] I found no evidence that the General Division was biased. The hearing process was fair. An informed person, viewing the matter reasonably and practically and having thought the matter through, would not conclude that it was more likely than not that the General Division would not decide the case in a fair manner.

[32] As a result, it is not arguable that the General Division failed to provide a fair process or was biased. I am also satisfied that the General Division did not misinterpret or fail to properly consider any relevant evidence.^{Footnote 24}

Conclusion

[33] This appeal has no reasonable chance of success.

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