Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

Overview

[2] J. R. is the Applicant. I will call him the Claimant because this appeal concerns his claim for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. The Respondent is the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, which I will call the Commission.

[3] The Claimant was expected to return to work at the end of his sick leave on June 24, 2024. He was prepared to return but his mother unexpectedly collapsed and required care. As a result, the Claimant did not return to work, nor did he update his employer on his situation.

[4] The employer terminated his employment on July 8, 2024, for job abandonment. The Claimant applied for EI benefits, but the Commission denied his claim. It found that his employer had dismissed him for misconduct. The Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider, but it would not change its decision.

[5] The Claimant appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). The General Division dismissed his appeal.

[6] Now the Claimant is asking for permission to appeal the General Division decision. I am refusing permission because the Claimant had not made an arguable case that the General Division made an error that I may consider.

Issue

[7] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error that I may consider?

I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

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}

Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error that I may consider?

[11] The Claimant filed an application to the Appeal Division on May 1, 2025. His application omitted to indicate any ground of appeal, and he did not identify any error in the General Division or explain why he was appealing.

[12] I wrote to the Claimant on May 7, 2024, to remind him of the grounds of appeal, and to ask him again to explain why he was appealing. In my letter, I gave the Claimant until May 21, 2025, to respond. A Tribunal officer discussed my letter with him on May 12, 2025. The Claimant told the officer that he understood and that he would respond shortly. However, the Tribunal did not receive anything further from the Claimant.

[13] I appreciate that the Claimant is unrepresented. I am following the lead of the Federal Court, which says I need to be cautious at the leave to appeal stage, especially with unrepresented applicants. I do not want to refuse to hear the Claimant’s appeal just because he has not clearly expressed his reasons for appealing.^{Footnote 3}

[14] As a result, I reviewed the file to see if a potential error is apparent on the face of the decision or the file. Unfortunately for the Claimant, I was unable to discover an argument that the General Division made an error that I may consider:

• There is nothing in the record to suggest that the General Division process treated the Claimant unfairly.
• The General Division does not appear to have made an error of jurisdiction. It considered the issue described in the reconsideration decision and no other issue.
• The General Division decision appears to be legally correct. It identified that a claimant who loses their job for misconduct is disqualified from receiving benefits. It described the legal definition, or test, for misconduct and it compared the Claimant’s circumstances to the requirements of the test.
• I found no instance where it was apparent that the General Division ignored or misunderstood relevant evidence, and its findings appear to be rationally connected to the evidence.

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

Conclusion

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