KT v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

KT v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Leave to appeal was refused because the Appeal Division found no arguable reviewable error: the General Division applied the correct law (Faucher factors), considered the claimant's COVID‑19 and caregiving explanations, and its findings that the claimant set personal conditions (availability only after school hours...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2022 SST 580
Parties
Applicant / Claimant: K. T.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal to Appeal Division / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Availability for Work, Leave to Appeal, Error of Fact, Standard of Review, Reconsideration
Source Language
english
Employment Insurance Social Security Administrative Law Availability for Work Leave to Appeal Error of Fact Standard of Review Reconsideration

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

K. T.

Applicant / Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal to Appeal Division / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Division made an important error of fact in finding the claimant was not available for work
  2. 2 Whether the claimant set personal conditions that unduly limited her job search
  3. 3 Whether the General Division committed any reviewable error of law or procedural unfairness warranting leave to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Appeal Division found no arguable reviewable error: the General Division applied the correct law (Faucher factors), considered the claimant's COVID‑19 and caregiving explanations, and its findings that the claimant set personal conditions (availability only after school hours and limiting search area due to refusal to use public transit) were supported by the evidence and within its fact‑finding remit; there was no procedural unfairness or error of law warranting appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal refused; the appeal will not proceed.