Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] D. A. is the Applicant. I will call him the Claimant because this application is about his claim for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. The Respondent is the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, which I will refer to as the Commission.

[3] The Claimant is a fisherman. He collected Employment Insurance (EI) benefits on and off depending on when he was working. Between January 2023 and June 2023, the Commission identified six weeks in which the Claimant did not report all of his earnings. It told the Claimant he had to repay the amount that it had overpaid in benefits. It also found that the Claimant had knowingly made false statements, so it assessed a violation and imposed a penalty.

[4] The Claimant disagreed, saying that he was at sea for 35 days at a time, and that his work did not line up with when he was paid. He asked the Commission to reconsider.

[5] The Commission decided to reverse the penalty and violation, but it would not change its decision on the overpayment. The Claimant appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal.

[6] The General Division dismissed his appeal, and the Claimant is now asking the Appeal Division for permission to appeal.

[7] I am refusing permission to appeal. The Claimant has not made out an arguable case that the General Division made an error of procedural fairness, or an error of fact.

General principles

[8] For the Claimant’s application for leave to appeal to succeed, his reasons for appealing would have to fit within the “grounds of appeal.” The grounds of appeal identify the kinds of errors that I can consider.

[9] 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}

[10] 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. Other court decisions have equated a reasonable chance of success to an “arguable case.”^{Footnote 2}

[11] The only ground of appeal that the Claimant selected in completing his application to the Appeal Division was the ground of appeal concerned with procedural fairness.

Issues

[12] Is there an arguable case that the General Division acted in a way that was procedurally unfair?

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal.

Procedural fairness

[13] There is no arguable case that the General Division acted in a way that was procedurally unfair.

[14] Parties before the General Division have a right to certain procedural protections such as the right to be heard and to know the case against them, and the right to an unbiased decision-maker.

[15] The Claimant did not say that he did not have a fair chance to present his case at his hearing, or to respond to the Commission’s case. He has not complained that the General Division member was biased or that he had already prejudged the matter.

[16] When I read the decision and review the appeal record, I do not see that the General Division did anything, or failed to do anything, that causes me to question the fairness of the process.

Error of fact

[17] The Claimant did not select “error of fact” as a ground of appeal. However, his appeal explanation appears to dispute a factual issue, which is whether the Commission actually paid him benefits for the weeks it claims to have paid him. Therefore, I will still consider whether the General Division made an important error of fact.

[18] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error by accepting that the Claimant was overpaid $3,352.00, in accordance with the Commission’s overpayment breakdown document.^{Footnote 3}

[19] I searched the record for relevant evidence that the General Division may have ignored or misunderstood.^{Footnote 4} I did not find anything to suggest an arguable case that the General Division may have made an error of fact.

[20] I note that the Claimant told the Commission that he understood he would have to repay the benefits that he should not have received.^{Footnote 5} When he appealed to the General Division, his Notice of Appeal did not indicate that he believed the Commission had not paid him the benefits.

[21] The Claimant did not give the General Division bank statements or any other documentary evidence, to help make the case that he was not paid EI benefits for those weeks. His application to the Appeal Division indicates that he now has banking statements, but the Appeal Division is not allowed to consider new evidence submitted for the purpose of disputing any of the facts found by the General Division.^{Footnote 6}

[22] I listened to his General Division hearing recording, and I cannot be certain whether he meant to argue that he did not receive the EI benefits that the Commission said he received. At one point, he seemed to say that he had not, but his main argument was that they should not have deducted his earnings because his earnings were for work done at a different time.^{Footnote 7}

[23] The General Division member gave the Claimant opportunities to clarify his position on what EI benefits he was paid, but the Claimant did not really seize those opportunities.^{Footnote 8} When the member read out his weekly benefits from the Commission’s overpayment statement, the Claimant acknowledged that the statement said that he was receiving money and not reporting earnings. He did not deny that he received benefits. In fact, he seemed to accept that he was paid only $162.00 in one week because of earnings he reported for that one week. Otherwise, his answer was that he would not have had any earnings to report because they were from the month before.^{Footnote 9}

[24] The General Division’s job to weigh and assess the evidence and to find facts. Absent clear evidence that the Commission did not pay the EI benefits in those weeks, the General Division was entitled to accept the Commission’s evidence. It is the General Division’s job to weigh and assess the evidence and to find facts.^{Footnote 10} I have no authority to re-weigh or re-evaluate the evidence to reach a different conclusion.^{Footnote 11}

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

Conclusion

[26] I am refusing permission to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed.