HC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

HC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission Collection Employment Insurance (EI) Decision date 2025-10-10 Neutral citation 2025 SST 1044 Reference number AD-25-570 Member Elsa Kelly-Rhéaume Division Appeal Division Decision Application for leave to appeal refused Related decisions SST - HC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission - 2025 SST 1045 - 2025-08-25 - General Division Decision Content Citation: HC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2025 SST 1044 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: H. C. Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated August 25, 2025 (GE-25-2284) Tribunal member: Elsa Kelly-Rhéaume Decision date: October 10, 2025 File number: AD-25-570 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matters Issues I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [1] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. The appeal will not proceed. Overview [2] The Claimant, H. C., requested regular employment insurance (EI) benefits starting on January 9, 2025, after having received sickness benefits. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided he had not proven his availability for work and that he was disentitled from receiving regular EI benefits from January 9, 2025.Footnote 1 [3] The Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider its decision. He explained that he had been looking for jobs since January 9, through “job banks and LinkedIn sites”.Footnote 2 The Commission decided upon reconsideration that the Claimant was disentitled from January 9, 2025, to June 17, 2025, because he had not proven his availability for work during that period.Footnote 3 [4] The Claimant then appealed to the General Division. The General Division dismissed his appeal. It decided that the Claimant had not shown he was available for work during that same period because he did not engage in an active job search until June 18, 2025. [5] The Claimant now seeks leave (permission) to appeal the General Division’s decision. Preliminary matters The Appeal Division gave the Claimant more time to explain his grounds of appeal [6] To apply for permission to appeal the General Division’s decision, the Claimant mistakenly filled out the form used to appeal a reconsideration decision to the General Division, instead of filling out the form to ask for permission to appeal a General Division decision to the Appeal Division.Footnote 4 [7] In his application to the Appeal Division, the Claimant referred to the General Division decision rendered in his file on August 25, 2025.Footnote 5 He wrote that he clearly remembers telling the Commission on the phone that he was available to work full time since January 9, 2025.Footnote 6 He added that he always sent the necessary documents right after each call, including a doctor’s note when it was requested. He says that his detailed information was not written in his file every time and that this caused issues for his EI claim. He says it caused frustration and confusion in his case. [8] The Appeal Division wrote a letter to the Claimant to request additional information about why he wants permission to appeal.Footnote 7 Since the Claimant had not used the right form, he did not check which ground(s) of appeal he was basing his appeal on. Therefore, the Appeal Division’s letter asked him to explain in detail why he was appealing the decision of the General Division and listed the grounds of appeal that can be considered by the Appeal Division. [9] The Claimant did not provide any additional information, despite being given two weeks to do so. Issues [10] I must answer the following questions: a) Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact when assessing the Claimant’s availability? b) Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error, not alleged by the Claimant, that allows me to intervene? I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal [11] The Claimant has not shown that his appeal has a reasonable chance of success based on one of the grounds of appeal that would allow me to intervene. [12] The Appeal Division can only intervene if the General Division has done one of the following: proceeded in a way that was unfair acted beyond its powers or refused to exercise those powers made an error in law based its decision on an important error of factFootnote 8 [13] The law states that I must refuse permission to appeal if I am satisfied that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success.Footnote 9 A reasonable chance of success means that the Claimant has an arguable case.Footnote 10 There isn’t an arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact [14] The Claimant’s main argument before the General Division was that he had been told by the Commission “not to do anything”. The Claimant argued before the General Division that he understood this to include he should not look for a job. The Claimant did not provide evidence, apart from his testimony to the General Division, that he had been told this. [15] In his application to the Appeal Division, the Claimant reiterated that he always told the Commission he was available for work and that the Commission should have taken more accurate notes of their telephone conversations. I will characterize his argument as an alleged important error of fact, because he seems to be arguing the General Division didn’t consider all his evidence. [16] In essence, the Claimant is re-arguing his case before the Appeal Division. [17] The Appeal Division is not the trier of fact. The Appeal Division cannot intervene just because it might have decided the facts differently.Footnote 11 I cannot grant permission to appeal unless the General Division overlooked or misconstrued key evidence.Footnote 12 There is no arguable case that the General Division made such an error in the present matter. [18] It appears from the file that the Claimant did not take any steps to search for a job except applying to one job at X during the period in question. The Claimant told the agent assessing his reconsideration request that he had only applied for one job at X around the month of February.Footnote 13 The Claimant told the Commission that he had seen some opportunities in the job bank but had not applied.Footnote 14 [19] The General Division considered the Claimant’s testimony about getting inaccurate advice from the Commission in its decision.Footnote 15 The General Division noted that the Claimant had no evidence of this call and thought it might have been due to a miscommunication or misunderstanding.Footnote 16 The General Division also pointed out that even if the Claimant had been given wrong information by the Commission, the General Division must still apply the law.Footnote 17 So there is no arguable case that the General Division ignored the evidence regarding the call. Rather, the General Division weighed the evidence and decided that the Claimant had not proven on a balance of probabilities that the Commission told him “not to do anything”.Footnote 18 This factual finding is supported by the evidence and therefore I cannot intervene. [20] Even if the Claimant had proven that the Commission had given him inaccurate information, this wouldn’t have relieved him from the requirement of proving his availability for work. A claimant cannot rely on misinformation to avoid the application of the law.Footnote 19 There isn’t an arguable case that the General Division made a reviewable error [21] The Claimant is not contesting that the General Division applied the correct legal test. The General Division applied the Faucher factors to determine the Claimant’s availability.Footnote 20 The General Division correctly set out the applicable legal test in its decision.Footnote 21 At the hearing, the General Division member explained the three factors to the Claimant, namely that he had to have a desire to return to the labor market, make efforts to find a suitable job and not set any personal conditions that might unduly limit his chances of returning to work.Footnote 22 [22] The Claimant does not allege any procedural fairness or natural justice issue in his application for leave to appeal. Nevertheless, I have listened to the recording of the hearing and found no arguable case of any breach of fairness. At the hearing, the member explained the legal test she had to apply to the Claimant’s case in order to determine the outcome of the appeal.Footnote 23 She ensured that he understood the test he had to meet. She also urged him to present all his evidence and arguments before her, highlighting the importance of the hearing.Footnote 24 The General Division also reviewed the documents in the record and asked the Claimant if he wanted to submit any other documents.Footnote 25 He declined. Towards the end of the hearing, the member asked the Claimant if there was anything else he wanted to discuss that had not already been addressed.Footnote 26 I find the General Division made efforts to ensure the Claimant was fairly heard and had the opportunity to present his case. There is no arguable case that the General Division may have breached the principles of procedural fairness or natural justice. [23] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error regarding its jurisdiction either. It had to decide the question of availability, and it did. Its jurisdiction is limited to the issue dealt with in the reconsideration decision. The General Division clarified that it could not review any complaints about the Commission’s behavior.Footnote 27 [24] Overall, the Claimant wishes the outcome of his case were different. This is understandable, but the Appeal Division is not tasked with deciding the case anew. I note from the record that the Claimant had a conversation with the Commission on June 18, 2025.Footnote 28 The Claimant asked if he could start receiving benefits if he changed his behaviour from that day on. The Commission informed him that he could submit a job search effort for the following week, and that it would be considered. The record shows that after this conversation was held, the Claimant began to apply to at least one job per day and thoroughly document his job search.Footnote 29 Conclusion [25] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See Commission’s Notice of Decision at GD3-27. Footnote 2 See Request for reconsideration form at GD3-30. Footnote 3 See Notice of Decision at GD3-111. Footnote 4 See Notice of Appeal filed by Claimant at AD1-2. Footnote 5 See AD1-8. Footnote 6 See AD1-10. Footnote 7 See Additional Information Request sent to the Claimant on September 9, 2025. Footnote 8 Section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act. Footnote 9 Section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act. Footnote 10 Osaj v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 115. Footnote 11 See Canada (Attorney General) v Hannah, 2021 FCA 61 at paragraph 24. Footnote 12 See Garvey v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 118 at paragraph 6. Footnote 13 See Telephone call notes at GD3-33. Footnote 14 See Telephone call notes at GD3-33. Footnote 15 See the General Division decision at AD1A-6 at paragraph 29. Footnote 16 See the General Division decision at AD1A-6 at paragraph 29. Footnote 17 See the General Division decision at AD1A-6 at paragraph 30. See also Molchan v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 46 at paragraph 32. Footnote 18 See AD1A-4 at paragraph 29. Footnote 19 See Molchan v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 46 at paragraph 37. Footnote 20 See AD1A-4 at paragraph 19. Footnote 21 See AD1A-4 at paragraphs 18-20. Footnote 22 See Recording of Hearing at 00:10:50. Footnote 23 See Recording of Hearing at 00:09:15. Footnote 24 See Recording of Hearing at 00:07:45. Footnote 25 See Recording of Hearing at 00:06:45. Footnote 26 See Recording of Hearing at 00:34:04. Footnote 27 See AD1A-8 at paragraph 38. Footnote 28 See GD3-33. Footnote 29 See Job Search sheet at GD3-109.