BM v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

BM v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Leave to appeal was refused because the claimant did not demonstrate an arguable jurisdictional error or an important error of fact: the General Division addressed the issues arising from reconsideration, its factual findings on reasonableness of waiting and availability were within its fact‑finding discretion, and the claimant pointed to no evidence that the General Division overlooked or misunderstood that would give the appeal a reasonable chance of success.

Citation
2024 SST 533
Parties
Claimant: B. M.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance (ei) / Leave to Appeal (appeal Division)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal will not proceed.
Legal Topics
Availability for Work, Disentitlement/overpayment, Penalty/fine, Notice of Violation, Leave to Appeal, Error of Jurisdiction, Error of Fact
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Tribunal Procedure Availability for Work Disentitlement/overpayment Penalty/fine Notice of Violation Leave to Appeal +2 more

Case Brief

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. M.

Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance (ei) / Leave to Appeal (appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Division made an error of jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the General Division made an important error of fact in finding it was unreasonable to wait to be recalled for more than two months
  3. 3 Whether the General Division made an important error of fact in finding the claimant was not available after June 1, 2023 despite networking activities

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the claimant did not demonstrate an arguable jurisdictional error or an important error of fact: the General Division addressed the issues arising from reconsideration, its factual findings on reasonableness of waiting and availability were within its fact‑finding discretion, and the claimant pointed to no evidence that the General Division overlooked or misunderstood that would give the appeal a reasonable chance of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal will not proceed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.
  • Appeal dismissed at leave stage; no further review will proceed.