Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] E. G. is the Claimant in this case. He applied for Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits after he stopped working.

[3] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that the Claimant had received vacation pay from his employer. It said that the vacation pay was income and earnings, so it would be allocated to his EI claim from January 15, 2023 to March 18, 2023.^{Footnote 1}

[4] The General Division concluded the same.^{Footnote 2} It found that the vacation pay was income and earnings and allocated it to his EI claim from January 15, 2023 to March 18, 2023.

[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.^{Footnote 4}

Preliminary matter

[7] The Claimant applied to the Appeal Division but he didn’t identify the type of error that he thought the General Division made.^{Footnote 5}

[8] So, the Tribunal sent the Claimant a letter asking for more information about his appeal.^{Footnote 6} The letter provided information about the types of errors that the Appeal Division could consider.^{Footnote 7} It asked him to identify the specific type of error or errors that the General Division made and to provide reasons to support his position. The deadline to reply to the letter was January 24, 2024.

[9] The Claimant emailed the Tribunal saying that his English wasn’t “good” and asked for return call.^{Footnote 8} An email followed saying that the Claimant has an English barrier and needs a telephone call with an interpreter who speaks Arabic.^{Footnote 9}

[10] The Tribunal Navigator assigned to the file arranged a telephone call with the Claimant and an interpreter on January 26, 2024. The purpose of that call was to discuss the letter sent by the Tribunal and explain the Appeal Division process.^{Footnote 10}

[11] The Claimant was also given an extension to respond to the Tribunal letter, until February 7, 2024.^{Footnote 11} As of the date of this decision, the Claimant has not responded to the Tribunal’s letter.

Issue

[12] Is there an arguable case that the General Division make a reviewable error?

Analysis

[13] An appeal can proceed only if the Appeal Division gives permission to appeal.^{Footnote 12}

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

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

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

[16] There is no arguable case that the General Division made a reviewable error in this case.

[17] In the Claimant’s application forms to the Appeal Division, he wrote the following: “I was happy with the final decision. However, it [took] 10 weeks for a decision, which means that for 10 weeks I had no income. That is what I am appealing, payment for the 10 weeks”.^{Footnote 15}

[18] The Claimant hasn’t identified the type of error he thinks the General Division made, except to say that he wants payment for 10 weeks due to a delay.

[19] I understand his argument to mean that because a decision was delayed for 10 weeks, he had no income during that period and should get EI benefits for those weeks.

[20] The Tribunal’s own rules say that it has to give a decision as soon as possible after the hearing.^{Footnote 16} The file shows that the General Division issued its decision promptly, 4 days after the hearing took place.^{Footnote 17}

[21] So, it isn’t clear which decision the Claimant is referring to when he says it was delayed for 10 weeks. If he is referring to the Commission’s delay in decision making, the Tribunal has no authority to address or resolve those concerns.   

[22] As well, the General Division has no authority to give an additional 10 weeks of EI benefits on the basis of delay or financial hardship. It correctly stated in its decision it cannot rewrite the law, even in compassionate cases.^{Footnote 18}

[23] Even though the Claimant hasn’t identified the type of error he thinks the General Division made, I am going to review what it decided.

[24] The General Division had to decide whether the vacation pay the Claimant got were earnings, and if so, whether they should be allocated to his EI claim.^{Footnote 19}

[25] The General Division concluded that the Claimant’s vacation pay totalling $18,321.91 were earnings and had to be allocated to his EI claim for the period from January 15, 2023 to March 18, 2023.

[26] The General Division found that based on its calculations, the Claimant’s average normal weekly earnings were $1,984.00 and not $1,953.00 as the Commission had previously decided.^{Footnote 20}

[27] The General Division identified that neither the Claimant, nor the Commission attended the hearing.^{Footnote 21} It properly confirmed that the notice of hearing was sent by email to the parties on September 1, 2023. It relied on its authority to proceed if it was satisfied that the parties got the notice of hearing.^{Footnote 22}

[28] Based on my review, the General Division correctly stated and applied the law in its decision. Its findings are consistent with the evidence in the file. It explained with reasons why it made the decision it did. It followed a fair process.

[29] I reviewed the documents in the file, examined the decision under appeal, and satisfied myself that the General Division did not misinterpret or fail to properly consider any relevant evidence.^{Footnote 23}

[30] The Appeal Division does not provide an opportunity for the parties to re-argue their case. It has a limited mandate and has to decide whether the General Division made an error under the law.^{Footnote 24}

[31] Accordingly, there is no arguable case that the General Division made a reviewable error.^{Footnote 25} This means that this appeal has no reasonable chance of success.

Conclusion

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