Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] C. N. is the Claimant. He applied for Employment Insurance benefits (benefits).

[3] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that the Claimant wasn’t entitled to get benefits because he hadn’t proven that he was available for work.^{Footnote 1}

[4] The General Division concluded the same. It found that he hadn’t proven he was available for work because he was retired and wasn’t looking for work.^{Footnote 2}

[5] The Claimant is now asking for permission to appeal and argues that the General Division made an important error of fact.^{Footnote 3}

[6] I am denying the Claimant’s request for permission to appeal because it has no reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 4}

Preliminary matters

The Claimant submitted new evidence

[7] As part of the Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division, he submitted a letter from his former employer dated February 25, 2025. It identifies his job responsibilities and that he retired from work on April 1, 2024.^{Footnote 5}

[8] New evidence is evidence that the General Division didn’t have before it when it made its decision. The Appeal Division generally doesn’t accept new evidence.^{Footnote 6} This is because the Appeal Division isn’t the fact finder or rehearing the case. It’s a review of the General Division’s decision based on the same evidence.^{Footnote 7}

[9] There are some exceptions where new evidence is allowed.^{Footnote 8} For example, I can accept new evidence if it provides one of the following:

• general background information only
• if it highlights findings made without supporting evidence
• shows that the Tribunal acted unfairly

[10] I find that the Claimant’s letter from his employer (dated February 25, 2025) is new evidence that wasn’t before the General Division.^{Footnote 9}

[11] I’m not accepting the above new evidence because it isn’t general background information and doesn’t meet any of the other exceptions. This means I can’t consider the new evidence when making my decision.

Issue

[12] Is there an arguable case that the General Division based its decision on an important error of fact when it decided that the Claimant was not available for work?

Analysis

[13] An appeal can only proceed if the Appeal Division gives permission to appeal.^{Footnote 10}

[14] I must be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 11} This means that there must be some arguable ground that the appeal might succeed.^{Footnote 12}

[15] 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”).

[16] The possible grounds of appeal to the Appeal Division are that the General Division did one of the following:^{Footnote 13}

• 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.

[17] The Claimant argues that the General Division made an important error of fact, so that’s what I will focus on.^{Footnote 14}

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

There is no arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact

[18] 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 15}

[19] I can intervene if the General Division based its decision on an important mistake about the facts of the case. This involves considering some of the following questions:^{Footnote 16}

• Does the evidence squarely contradict one of the General Division’s key findings?
• Is there no evidence that could rationally support one of the General Division’s key findings?
• Did the General Division overlook critical evidence that contradicts one of its key findings?

[20] The Claimant’s main arguments to the Appeal Division are as follows:^{Footnote 17}

• His case is an exception
• He didn’t quit his job, he was laid off due to a shortage of work
• He got a company package for voluntary early retirement
• He is retired from work and not looking for work
• His employer told him that benefits were already approved by Service Canada
• He has been in Canada for 40 years and it’s now time to learn English

[21] The Commission decided that the Claimant wasn’t entitled to get benefits from April 8, 2024, because he hadn’t proven his availability for work.^{Footnote 18}

[22] The General Division had to decide whether the Claimant had proven he was capable of and available for work and unable to obtain suitable employment for the period from April 8, 2024.^{Footnote 19} It also had to decide whether the Claimant was making reasonable and customary efforts to obtain suitable employment.^{Footnote 20}

[23] The General Division concluded that the Claimant had not proven he was available for work. It found that he hadn’t made any efforts to find a suitable job.^{Footnote 21} It also found that he hadn’t proven that his efforts to find a job were reasonable and customary.^{Footnote 22}

[24] This fact wasn’t disputed by the Claimant because he agreed that he was retired from work and wasn’t looking for work.^{Footnote 23} The General Division determined that his choice to remain retired from work was a personal condition that unduly limited his chances of going back to work.^{Footnote 24}

[25] The General Division addressed the argument that he was told by his employer he was eligible to get benefits.^{Footnote 25} It correctly stated that his employer isn’t part of the government (Service Canada) that has authority to administer benefits.^{Footnote 26}

[26] The General Division also identified in its decision that the Claimant was taking English classes for self-improvement.^{Footnote 27} Even though the Claimant was doing things for self-improvement, that isn’t an exception in law. He still has to prove his availability for work in order to get benefits.

[27] The Claimant also argues that he didn’t voluntarily leave his job, but that’s not the issue under appeal and isn’t the reason he can’t get benefits.^{Footnote 28} The only issue before the General Division was whether he had proven his availability for work.

[28] The Claimant’s arguments to the Appeal Division amount to a disagreement with the outcome, but that isn’t a reviewable error.

[29] The Appeal Division has a limited mandate.^{Footnote 29} I can’t intervene in order to settle a disagreement about the application of settled legal principles to the facts of a case. In other words, I can’t intervene to reweigh the evidence in order to come to a different or more favourable conclusion for the Claimant.^{Footnote 30}

[30] There is no arguable case that the General Division based its decision on an important mistake about the facts of the case.^{Footnote 31} Its key findings on the availability issue are consistent with the evidence.

There are no other reasons for giving permission to appeal

[31] I reviewed the file and examined the General Division decision. I didn’t find any relevant evidence that the General Division might have ignored or misinterpreted.^{Footnote 32} Also, it correctly stated the law in its decision.^{Footnote 33}

Conclusion

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