C. H. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Leave to appeal granted because the Applicant raised arguable legal and factual errors and the file discloses a factual basis (notably a contrast between evidence at GD3-20 and paragraph 35 of the General Division decision) giving the appeal a reasonable chance of success.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: 2016 SSTADEI 485
Parties: Applicant: C. H.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court: Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 23 September 2016
Procedural Posture: Employment Insurance (ei) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Appeal Division
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal granted
Legal Topics: Availability for Work, Leave to Appeal, Natural Justice, Erroneous Finding of Fact, Jurisdiction
Source Language: english

Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Employment Law Availability for Work Leave to Appeal Natural Justice Erroneous Finding of Fact +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 1

Parties

C. H.

Applicant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance (ei) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Appeal Division

Legal Issues

1 Whether the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction
2 Whether the General Division erred in law in making its decision
3 Whether the General Division based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal granted

Orders

Application for leave to appeal granted

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.