Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] Leave (permission) to appeal is denied. This means K. J.’s appeal won’t go forward.^{Footnote 1}

Overview

[2] K. J. is the Claimant in this case. He has asked for permission to appeal a General Division decision. I will give him permission if he has a reasonable chance of winning the appeal.

[3] The General Division decided it could not backdate the Claimant’s application to renew his EI claim for regular benefits. Section 10(5) of the Employment Insurance Act (EI Act) sets out the good cause test to get a claim backdated. The General Division decided he didn’t show good cause. So it dismissed his appeal.

[4] In his application to appeal (application), the Claimant makes the same arguments he made to the General Division.

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

Issue

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

I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

[7] Before making my decision, I read the Claimant’s application to appeal.^{Footnote 2} I read the General Division decision. And I reviewed the documents in the General Division file.^{Footnote 3}

[8] For the reasons that follow, I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal.

The permission to appeal test screens out appeals without a reasonable chance of success^{Footnote 4}

[9] The Claimant has applied for permission to appeal. I give permission when there’s an arguable case the General Division made an error that gives a claimant a reasonable chance of winning their appeal.^{Footnote 5}

[10] The law lets me consider four types of errors—the General Division used an unfair procedure, or made a jurisdictional error, a legal error, or an important factual error.^{Footnote 6}

The Claimant’s appeal doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success

[11] The Claimant’s reasons for appeal set out the key issues and central arguments I have to consider.^{Footnote 7}

[12] I understand the Claimant disagrees with the General Division decision and the outcome for him. But when I look at his General Division appeal form, the General Division decision, and his application to appeal, his reasons show me he’s trying to reargue his appeal. The Appeal Division application process isn’t a do-over. His reasons need to show an arguable case the General Division made an error. They don’t show that.

[13] The Claimant is representing himself. So when I applied the permission to appeal test I looked beyond his reasons.^{Footnote 8} I looked for an arguable case the General Division made a legal error or an important factual error.

[14] The General Division explained why it didn’t have the authority to deal with the Commission’s failure to meet the 30 day timeline (paragraphs 15, 18). There isn’t an arguable case the General Division made a legal error in this part of its decision.

[15] The General Division explained why it had to decide whether the claimant met the EI Act good cause test to get an antedate—not whether he acted reasonably on a Vavilov standard (paragraphs 15, 19). There isn’t an arguable case the General Division made a legal error in this part of its decision.

[16] And there isn’t an arguable case the General Division made a legal error with the EIA section 10(4) test for backdating a claim (paragraphs 10 to 13, 20 to 23).

[17] Finally, I reviewed the documents the General Division had. I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division ignored or misunderstood relevant evidence in its decision. Or an arguable case there’s relevant evidence that goes against its decision.

Conclusion

[18] The Claimant’s appeal doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success. This means his appeal can’t go forward.