Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] I am not giving R. C. permission to appeal. Her appeal won’t go forward. This means the General Division decision stands unchanged.

Overview

[2] R. C. is the Claimant in this case. She applied for the Employment Insurance (EI) caregiver benefit so she could take care of her husband. He was recovering from knee replacement surgery.

[3] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) denied her application. And it upheld its decision when she asked for a reconsideration.

[4] The General Division dismissed her appeal. It decided her husband wasn’t critically ill or injured.^{Footnote 1} That’s because the medical certificates didn’t say his life was at risk.^{Footnote 2}

[5] The Claimant’s appeal can only go forward if I give her permission to appeal.

[6] When deciding whether to give her permission, I reviewed the General Division appeal file.^{Footnote 3} I read the General Division decision. And I read the Claimant’s Appeal Division application.^{Footnote 4}

Issues

[7] I have to decide whether there is an arguable case the General Division made an important factual error.

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

The test for permission to appeal

[8] I can give the Claimant permission to appeal if she can show there is an arguable case the General Division made one of the following errors:

• It used an unfair process or was biased.
• It didn’t decide an issue it should have decided, or decided an issue it should not have decided.
• It based its decision on an important factual error.
• It made a legal error.^{Footnote 5}

[9] An arguable case means the same thing as a reasonable chance of success. This test is easy to meet.^{Footnote 6}

There isn’t an arguable case the General Division made an important factual error, or any other error I can consider

[10] On her permission to appeal form, the Claimant checked the box that says the General Division made an important factual error.^{Footnote 7} She included a separate page with reasons for the appeal. She sets out the circumstances that she and her husband faced during his recovery from surgery. She states that the Commission’s decision “seems unjust” when considering the extent of her husband’s reliance on her during that time.

[11] Then the Claimant writes: “I respectfully request SST to reassess my application in light of the unavoidable circumstances I faced. Your reconsideration and approval would provide much-needed support during a challenging period for our family.”

[12] The General Division makes an important factual error if it bases its decision on a factual finding it made by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence.^{Footnote 8} In other words, if the evidence goes squarely against or doesn’t support a factual finding the General Division had to make to reach its decision. And the law also says I can presume the General Division reviewed all the evidence—it doesn’t have to refer to every piece of evidence.^{Footnote 9}

[13] The Claimant hasn’t identified a factual error she is saying the General Division made. Based on my review of the documents before the General Division, its decision is supported by the evidence, and it didn’t ignore any relevant evidence. So, the Claimant hasn’t shown there is an arguable case the General Division made an important factual error.

[14] The Claimant is represented by a family member in this appeal. So, I looked beyond her argument to see if there was an arguable case the General Division made any errors.^{Footnote 10}

[15] The General Division identified and decided the legal issues it had to decide. It correctly summarized and used the law it had to use. I didn’t find evidence that the General Division had to consider but instead ignored or misunderstood. The General Division gave more than adequate reasons for its decision. And nothing shows me there is an arguable case the General Division failed to give the Claimant a full and fair opportunity to present her case. So, there isn’t an arguable case the General Division made an error.

[16] When I look at the Claimant’s appeal to the General Division and this appeal, she is arguing essentially the same thing.^{Footnote 11}

[17] Unfortunately for the Claimant, an appeal to the Appeal Division isn’t a new process from scratch—not a redo or a do-over of the General Division process.^{Footnote 12} The Appeal Division can’t re-weigh the evidence before the General Division and come to a different decision.^{Footnote 13} Disagreeing with the outcome (decision) the General Division reached isn’t an error I can consider.^{Footnote 14} And the law doesn’t allow me to give her permission to appeal based on fairness or compassion for her and her family.

Conclusion

[18] The Claimant hasn’t shown there is an arguable case the General Division made an error. In other words, her appeal doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success.

[19] So, I am denying her permission to appeal. This means her appeal won’t go forward and the General Division decision stands unchanged.