Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] The Applicant, P. B. (Claimant), is seeking leave to appeal the General Division decision. The General Division found that the Claimant voluntarily left his job, but that he did not have just cause for leaving. It found that he had reasonable alternatives to leaving. As a result, he was disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance benefits.

[3] The Claimant argues that he had just cause and that he did not have any reasonable alternatives to leaving. He says that he had family obligations, including looking after an ill parent. He also says that he had mental stress. He suggests that the General Division did not properly address these reasons. He also suggests that the member did not treat him fairly, as she “interrogated [him] as though [he were] a criminal.”^{Footnote 1}

[4] The Claimant says that he was unaware that so much documentation was required of him to prove his case. He says he will get supporting documents from his doctor.

[5] Before the Claimant can move ahead with the appeal, I have to decide whether the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. In other words, there has to be an arguable case.^{Footnote 2} If the appeal does not have a reasonable chance of success, this ends the matter.^{Footnote 3}

[6] I am not satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. Therefore, I am not giving permission to the Claimant to move ahead with the appeal.

Issues

[7] The issues are as follows:

1. (a) Is there an arguable case that the General Division member did not treat the Claimant fairly?
2. (b) Is there an arguable case that the General Division failed to consider the Claimant’s family obligations and that he was dealing with mental stress when it assessed whether he had just cause?
3. (c) Is there an arguable case that the Claimant can rely on new evidence at an appeal of the General Division decision?

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

[8] Leave to appeal is refused if the Appeal Division is satisfied that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. A reasonable chance of success exists if the General Division may have made a jurisdictional, procedural, legal, or a certain type of factual error.^{Footnote 4}

[9] For these types of factual errors, the General Division had to have based its decision on an error that it made in a perverse or capricious manner, or without regard for the evidence before it.^{Footnote 5}

The Claimant does not have an arguable case that the General Division member did not treat the Claimant fairly

[10] The Claimant does not have an arguable case that the General Division treated him unfairly. He suggests that the member discriminated against him by interrogating him as if he were a criminal.

[11] The hearing ran for about 45 minutes. The member made some opening remarks and then began asking the Claimant questions. There is no suggestion that any of the questions were inappropriate. Indeed, the questions related to the issues before the General Division.

[12] The member may have asked the Claimant a lot of questions, but she had to consider why he left his employment and whether he had any alternatives to leaving. She had to clarify what the Claimant’s position was on these issues. The fact that the member may have asked the Claimant a lot of questions does not raise an arguable case that there was anything unfair about the process, or that the member treated the Claimant unfairly.

[13] On the contrary, it would have been unfair to the Claimant if the member had not asked the Claimant questions to clarify his position.

[14] The Claimant suggests that the member acted in an untoward manner, but I do not see any instances of this. The member was not aggressive, threatening, nor harassing. Her tone and manner of questioning were appropriate. The member did not cross-examine the Claimant. She asked questions in an even and open-ended manner and gave the Claimant the chance to respond to the questions.

[15] I am not satisfied that there is an arguable case that the General Division member treated the Claimant unfairly.

The Claimant does not have an arguable case that the General Division failed to consider his family obligations and his mental stress

[16] The Claimant argues that he had just cause for leaving his job because he had family obligations, including an ill parent to look after, and was dealing with mental stress. He suggests that the General Division did not properly address these reasons. However, the General Division did in fact address each of these reasons.

[17] At paragraphs 18 to 27, the General Division reviewed the Claimant’s obligations to care for a member of the immediate family.^{Footnote 6} The General Division reviewed the evidence. It noted that neither the Claimant’s spouse nor his mother required a caregiver to look after them. It noted that the Claimant’s mother remains independent but found it comforting to have the Claimant nearby when she needs him. These findings were consistent with the evidence before it.

[18] At paragraphs 28 to 38, the General Division considered whether working conditions represented a danger to the Claimant’s health or safety.^{Footnote 7} The General Division found that there was simply insufficient evidence to show that the Claimant’s working conditions affected him to the extent that he claimed.

[19] Essentially, the Claimant is seeking a reassessment and asking me to come to a different conclusion from the one that the General Division member made. But, as the Federal Court said in a case called Tracey,^{Footnote 8} in an application for leave to appeal (in Employment Insurance matters), the Appeal Division has a limited role. It has to determine whether the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. It does not reassess evidence or reweigh the factors considered by the General Division in order to reach a different conclusion.

[20] As the Federal Court stated in another case, the possibility that the evidence might be reassessed in the applicant’s favour does not give rise to an arguable case sufficient to grant leave to appeal.^{Footnote 9}

[21] The General Division considered all of the evidence. The General Division found that the overall evidence did not show that the Claimant was obligated to care for a member of his immediate family, or that working conditions constituted a danger to his health or safety.

[22] I am not satisfied that the Claimant has an arguable case that the General Division failed to consider whether the Claimant had just cause for these reasons.

The Claimant does not have an arguable case that he can rely on new evidence at an appeal of the General Division decision

[23] The Claimant says he can ask his doctor for supporting documents that would show that his health was being affected by his work. He would be looking for a reassessment based on this new evidence.

[24] However, generally the Appeal Division does not accept new evidence regarding Employment Insurance claims.

[25] The courts have consistently held that generally the Appeal Division does not consider new evidence. As the Federal Court of Appeal said in a case called Gittens:

[13] … Under the rules set by Parliament, hearings before the Appeal Division are not redos based on updated evidence of the hearing before the General Division. They are instead reviews of General Division decisions based on the same evidence.^{Footnote 10}

[26] The Court of Appeal has set out the circumstances when the Appeal Division may allow new evidence. New evidence can be considered when it provides general background information, shows procedural defects, or exceptionally, in cases where both parties agree that an important document should be considered.^{Footnote 11} Those circumstances do not exist here.

[27] The Claimant’s offer to file new supporting evidence does not raise an arguable ground.

Conclusion

[28] The appeal does not have a reasonable chance of success. Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not be going ahead.