Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go forward.

Overview

[2] J. P. is the Claimant. He wants to appeal a General Division decision. I can give him permission if his appeal has a reasonable chance of success.

[3] The General Division dismissed his appeal. It found the Commission properly decided his qualifying period and hours of insurable employment. His qualifying period was limited to 19 weeks based on the start date of his August 2024 claim (first claim).^{Footnote 1} And the General Division agreed he didn’t have enough insurable hours to qualify for benefits under his December 2024 claim (second claim).

[4] The Claimant says the General Division made errors of jurisdiction and law, and an important error of fact. His qualifying period should have been extended to 104 weeks. Or the COVID rules that made it easier to qualify should have applied to him. He argues because the Commission made mistakes in his first claim, it can’t use that claim to limit his qualifying period under this second claim.

[5] Unfortunately for the Claimant, I can’t give him permission to appeal. His appeal doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success.

Issue

[6] Does the Claimant’s appeal have a reasonable chance of success?

I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

[7] I read the Claimant’s application to appeal.^{Footnote 2} I read the General Division decision. I reviewed the documents in the General Division file.^{Footnote 3} And I listened to the hearing recording.^{Footnote 4} Then I made my decision.

The permission to appeal test screens out appeals that don’t have a reasonable chance of success^{Footnote 5}

[8] The Claimant has to show an arguable ground of appeal upon which his appeal might succeed.^{Footnote 6} I can consider four grounds of appeal, which I call errors.^{Footnote 7} The General Division

• used an unfair process or wasn’t impartial (a procedural fairness error)
• didn’t use its decision-making power properly (a jurisdictional error)
• made a legal error
• made an important factual error

[9] The Claimant’s reasons for appeal set out the key issues and central arguments I have to consider.^{Footnote 8}

The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error, and I didn’t find an arguable case

The Claimant’s reasons don’t show an arguable case

[10] The Claimant checked three error boxes on his application form: error of jurisdiction, error of law, and important factual error. But he doesn’t refer to the General Division or the General Division decision in his reasons.

[11] He gives the following reasons:^{Footnote 9}

• chronological ordering of record of employment (ROE), and ROE not properly processed
• wrongfully denied qualifying period extension to 104 weeks, which violated the EI Act^{Footnote 10}
• his claim should have been processed under the temporary rules introduced in response to economic conditions, which he calls “the precedent of retroactive policy adjustments”
• arbitrary implementation of EI coverage created an inconsistent and unfair system

[12] These reasons refer to Commission errors and repeat arguments he made at the General Division.

[13] The Appeal Division process isn’t the Claimant’s opportunity to reargue his General Division appeal hoping for a different outcome. And simply disagreeing with the General Division decision, or saying the law or the outcome isn’t fair, doesn’t show an arguable case the General Division made an error.

[14] Because the Claimant is representing himself, I will look beyond his arguments to see if I can give him permission to appeal.^{Footnote 11}

No arguable case the General Division made a jurisdictional error^{Footnote 12}

[15] The General Division makes a jurisdictional error when it decides an issue it has no authority to decide. Or when it doesn’t decide an issue it has to decide.

[16] The Claimant’s chronological ordering or missing ROE argument is about his first claim. The evidence at the General Division shows the Commission accepted his first claim effective August 4, 2024. It paid him 19 weeks of benefits to December 21, 2024. I assume the claim ended once the Commission paid those benefits.^{Footnote 13}

[17] There isn’t an arguable case the General Division made a jurisdictional error when it refused to examine the Commission’s decision in his first claim.

[18] The Claimant argued his first and second claims were interrelated.^{Footnote 14} He said ideally the General Division could deal with both claims. He said the Commission made two mistakes in the first claim.^{Footnote 15} These mistakes meant his weekly benefit rate was reduced, and he got fewer weeks of benefits. His arguments imply the Commission made an error when it used his first claim to limit the qualifying period in his second claim.^{Footnote 16}

[19] At the hearing the General Division said it had authority to deal with the Commission’s reconsideration decision under the second claim.^{Footnote 17} Perhaps the General Division should have included this jurisdictional issue in its written decision. But there isn’t an arguable case the General Division made a jurisdictional error. And it doesn’t give the Claimant’s appeal a reasonable chance of success.

[20] The General Division gets the authority to hear an appeal (and the legal issues it raises) from the Commission’s reconsideration decision plus a claimant’s appeal of that decision to the General Division.^{Footnote 18} There was no evidence the Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider his first claim. And no evidence he appealed a reconsideration decision in his first claim.

[21] The General Division can take a broad approach to its jurisdiction, within the limits of the law, to manage appeals fairly and efficiently.^{Footnote 19}

[22] But what the Claimant asked the General Division to do goes beyond the limits of the law. He didn’t ask for a reconsideration of his first claim. So he had no right to appeal that claim to the General Division.

[23] And the General Division didn’t have what it needed to consider and decide his first claim. The legal issues and relevant facts in his first claim weren’t the same as his second claim. The General Division didn’t have the Commission’s documents showing its decision in the first claim, or the Commission legal position on the issues.

[24] In summary, there isn’t an arguable case the General Division made a jurisdictional error when it identified the issue it had to decide—under his second claim—and decided only that issue (paragraph 8).

No arguable case the General Division made an important factual error

[25] I listened to the hearing recording and reviewed the documents in the file. Then I compared that evidence to the evidence the General Division used in its decision.

[26] I didn’t find relevant evidence the General Division ignored or misunderstood. Relevant means important to the legal test the General Division had to use. And the relevant evidence supports the General Division decision.

No arguable case the General Division made a legal error

[27] The General Division considered and rejected the Claimant’s 104-week extension argument (paragraph 17). Then it applied the correct law.

[28] I reviewed the General Division decision and the law. The General Division correctly set out the law it had to use (paragraphs 10 to 15, and 21). Then used that law. Section 8(1)(b) was the key section of the EI Act for the Claimant’s appeal. The General Division correctly interpreted and applied that section to decide his appeal.

[29] The General Division didn’t have to consider the Claimant’s third and fourth arguments (see those bullet points, above). I listened to the hearing. The claimant argued the changes that made it easier to qualify for benefits during COVID should apply to him. The General Division pointed out these rules didn’t apply because his qualifying period was in 2024—years after those rules expired. As for the Claimant’s third argument, the General Division can’t consider general principles of fairness and equity. It has to apply the law. And that’s what it did.

[30] The General Division’s reasons are more than adequate.^{Footnote 20} It grappled with the right questions. It considered the parties’ evidence and the arguments it had to consider. And its reasons add up.

[31] All this shows me there isn’t an arguable case the General Division made a legal error.

Is it too late to challenge the Commission’s decision in the first claim?

[32] I understand the Claimant doesn’t agree with the Commission’s decision in his first claim. He might want to get legal advice about challenging that decision.^{Footnote 21}

[33] The EI scheme makes an exception to the 30-day deadline to request a reconsideration of a Commission decision. The Commission can extend the deadline if a person meets the test in the Reconsideration Request Regulations.^{Footnote 22}

[34] If the Commission changes that decision, it could rescind or amend the decision in his second claim.^{Footnote 23}

Conclusion

[35] The Claimant’s appeal doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success. So, I can’t give him permission to appeal the General Division decision.