M. R. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

M. R. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The application for leave to appeal is refused because the claimant failed to establish an arguable ground under subsection 58(1) DESDA: the General Division properly applied the law on availability, its factual findings that the claimant limited his job search were supported by the record, the new evidence did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2019 SST 1288
Parties
Claimant: M. R.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Collection / Application for Leave to Appeal (appeal Division)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Availability for Work, Leave to Appeal, Standard of Review, Natural Justice, Admissibility of New Evidence, Erroneous Finding of Fact
Source Language
english
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Benefits Law Availability for Work Leave to Appeal Standard of Review Natural Justice Admissibility of New Evidence +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. R.

Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Collection / Application for Leave to Appeal (appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established a ground of appeal under subsection 58(1) DESDA
  2. 2 Whether the General Division erred in law in its application of availability provisions
  3. 3 Whether the General Division made an erroneous finding of fact in a perverse or capricious manner

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal is refused because the claimant failed to establish an arguable ground under subsection 58(1) DESDA: the General Division properly applied the law on availability, its factual findings that the claimant limited his job search were supported by the record, the new evidence did not raise a s.58(1) ground, and typographical errors did not affect the outcome.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal refused.