Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] P. A. is the Claimant in this case. He applied for Employment Insurance regular benefits and a benefit period was established effective in December 2021.

[3] A few months later, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) got notification that the Claimant was working while he was receiving benefits.^{Footnote 1} It found that he had failed to report his earnings for eight weeks and then underreported his earnings for another eight weeks.

[4] The Commission decided that he had received earnings in the form of wages and allocated them to his claim.^{Footnote 2} This resulted in a notice of debt for the overpayment.^{Footnote 3}

[5] The General Division concluded the same and dismissed his appeal.^{Footnote 4} It decided that he got earnings that needed to be allocated. It also found the Commission had exercised its discretion fairly when it issued a warning instead of a monetary penalty and violation for the misrepresentation.

[6] The Claimant is now asking for permission to appeal. ^{Footnote 5} He argues that the General Division made an important error of fact when it allocated his wages.^{Footnote 6}

[7] I am denying the Claimant’s request for permission to appeal because it has no reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 7}

Issue

[8] Is there an arguable case that the General Division based its decision on an important error of fact when it allocated the Claimant’s wages for the period from March 20, 2022, to July 3, 2022?

Analysis

[9] An appeal can only proceed if the Appeal Division gives permission to appeal.^{Footnote 8}

[10] I must be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 9} This means that there must be some arguable ground that the appeal might succeed.^{Footnote 10}

[11] 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”).

[12] 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.

[13] The Claimant argues that the General Division made an important error of fact, so my decision will focus on that specific ground of appeal.

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

There is no arguable case that the General Division based its decision on an important error of fact

[14] An error of fact happens when the General Division has “based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.”^{Footnote 12} Put another way, if the General Division based its decision on an important mistake about the facts of the case, then I can intervene.

[15] In his application to the Appeal Division, the Claimant argues that the General Division made an error of fact because the Commission’s “numbers do not match.” To support his position, he submitted a copy of his ROE, the Commission’s decision reflecting the calculations/allocation and his T4 (statement of remuneration paid).^{Footnote 13}

[16] I understand the Claimant’s argument to be that the General Division made factual errors in its decision because the allocation doesn’t match the wages as reflected on the ROE.

[17] The ROE shows that the Claimant got wages from his employer from March 20, 2022, to July 9, 2022, while he was on claim.^{Footnote 14} The parties don’t appear to dispute that the wages are “earnings.”^{Footnote 15}

[18] The General Division’s decision notes that the Claimant failed to report his earnings for eight weeks and then underreported his earnings for another eight weeks while he was receiving benefits.^{Footnote 16} It found that the Commission had exercised its discretion in a judicial manner when it decided to impose a warning instead (and by doing so, it removed the previous monetary penalty of $2,482.00 and violation on his file).^{Footnote 17}

[19] The General Division then considered whether the Commission had properly allocated his wages to his claim.^{Footnote 18}

[20] It decided that the Commission had correctly allocated his wages for the period from March 20, 2022, to July 9, 2022. It relied on the ROE which identified his wages for those specific weeks.^{Footnote 19}

[21] The General Division’s key findings about the allocation of wages is consistent with the evidence in the file. When I look at the ROE on file and his wages, the allocation is consistent with the following:

[22] There is no arguable case that the General Division based its decision on an important error of fact when it decided that the Claimant’s wages from March 20, 2022, to July 3, 2022, had to be allocated.^{Footnote 20} Its key findings are supported by the evidence in the file.

[23] The Appeal Division has a limited mandate.^{Footnote 21} I can’t intervene in order to settle a disagreement about the application of settled legal principles to the facts of a case.^{Footnote 22} This means I can’t reweigh the evidence in order to come to a different or more favourable conclusion for the Claimant.

Conclusion

[24] I reviewed the file to see if there was an arguable case that the General Division made any other reviewable errors. I considered the documents in the file and examined the decision under appeal. I am satisfied that the General Division did not misinterpret or fail to consider any relevant evidence.^{Footnote 23} Also, it correctly stated the law in its decision.^{Footnote 24}

[25] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the Claimant’s appeal will not proceed. It has no reasonable chance of success.