JO v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

JO v Canada Employment Insurance Commission Collection Employment Insurance (EI) Decision date 2024-06-24 Neutral citation 2024 SST 721 Reference number AD-24-408 Member Glenn Betteridge Division Appeal Division Decision Application for leave to appeal refused Related decisions SST - JO v Canada Employment Insurance Commission - 2024 SST 722 - 2024-06-03 - General Division Subjects Appeal Division - Leave to appeal - No grounds of appeal EI - Employment Insurance Response Benefit Decision Content Citation: JO v Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2024 SST 721 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: J. O. Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated June 3, 2024 (GE-24-1790) Tribunal member: Glenn Betteridge Decision date: June 24, 2024 File number: AD-24-408 On this page Decision Overview Issues I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [1] I am not giving J. O. permission to appeal. His appeal won’t go ahead. So, the General Division decision stands unchanged. Overview [2] J. O. is the Claimant in this case. At the end of March 2020, he applied for Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) paid him the Emergency Response Benefit (EI ERB). He received a $2,000 advance payment for four weeks, and six weekly payments of $500 per week. [3] Later on, the Commission decided it had overpaid him $2,000. This was the advance payment. So, it was a debt he had to pay back. He appealed this decision to this Tribunal’s General Division. [4] The General Division dismissed his appeal. It decided that he wasn’t entitled to keep the $2,000 advance payment. This was an overpayment. [5] The Claimant’s appeal can only go forward if I give him permission to appeal. [6] When deciding whether to give him permission, I reviewed the General Division appeal file.Footnote 1 I read the General Division decision. And I read his Appeal Division application.Footnote 2 Issues [7] I have to decide whether there is an arguable case the General Division made an important factual error when it didn’t decide his appeal based on the misinformation the Commission told him. I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal The test for permission to appeal [8] I can give the Claimant permission to appeal if he can show there is an arguable case the General Division made one of the following errors: used an unfair process or was biased didn’t decide an issue it should have decided, or decided an issue it should not have decided based its decision on an important factual error made a legal errorFootnote 3 [9] An arguable case means the same thing as a reasonable chance of success. This test is easy to meet.Footnote 4 There isn’t an arguable case the General Division made an important factual error [10] The Claimant argued that the General Division made an important factual error.Footnote 5 He argues he was misinformed by the person he spoke with at the Commission, who gave him false information. He told the Commission he was not eligible for the EI ERB and didn’t want it. But it paid it to him. He tried to return it. He says the Commission told him he would not have to pay the money back. [11] The General Division makes an important factual error if it bases its decision on a factual finding it made by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence.Footnote 6 In other words, if the evidence goes squarely against or doesn’t support a factual finding the General Division had to make to reach its decision. [12] The law also says I can presume the General Division reviewed all the evidence—it doesn’t have to refer to every piece of evidence.Footnote 7 [13] The General Division had to apply the law about the EI ERB. The law points the General Division to the facts it has to consider when making its decision. It has to consider the relevant evidence but can’t base its decision on irrelevant evidence. [14] The General Division considered the relevant facts when it applied the law to reach a decision in the Claimant’s appeal. It considered evidence about the date he applied for EI benefits. Based on that date, it decided he wasn’t eligible for EI regular benefits (paragraph 15). The Commission could only pay him the EI ERB (paragraphs 14 and 15). Then it assessed the evidence about his entitlement to the EI ERB. And it decided the Commission had overpaid him $2,000 (paragraphs 23 and 24). [15] The Claimant’s evidence—about not applying for or being eligible for the EI ERB, trying to pay back the advance payment, and being told by the Commission he didn’t have to pay it back—wasn’t legally relevant. So, the General Division could not base its decision on these facts. It explained this at paragraph 22. It wrote that it could not, “exempt the Appellant from the operation of the Employment Insurance Act and its requirements because the Commission gave him incorrect or unsuitable information.” And it cited the court cases that say that, which it had to follow. [16] This means the Claimant hasn’t shown there is an arguable case the General Division ignored or misunderstood evidence it had to take into account when it decided his appeal. In other words, there isn’t an arguable case the General Division made an important factual error. There is no other reason I can give the Claimant permission to appeal [17] The Claimant is representing himself in this appeal. So, I looked beyond his argument to see if there was an arguable case the General Division made other errors.Footnote 8 [18] The General Division identified and decided the legal issues it had to decide. It correctly summarized and used the law it had to use. I didn’t find evidence that the General Division had to consider but instead ignored or misunderstood. And nothing shows me there is an arguable case the General Division failed to give the Claimant a full and fair opportunity to present his case. [19] So, there isn’t an arguable case the General Division made any other error I can consider. Conclusion [20] The Claimant hasn’t shown there is an arguable case the General Division made an error. In other words, his appeal doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success. [21] So, I am denying him permission to appeal. His appeal won’t go ahead. So, the General Division decision stands unchanged. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2, GD3, GD4, GD5. Footnote 2 See AD1. Footnote 3 These are the grounds of appeal in section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESD Act). Section 58(2) of the DESD Act says that I have to give permission to appeal if the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. This is the same as having an “arguable case.” See O’Rourke v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FC 498. Footnote 4 This legal test is described in cases like Osaj v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 115 at paragraph 12; and Ingram v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FC 259 at paragraph 16. Footnote 5 See AD1-3. Footnote 6 Section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act says it is a ground of appeal where the General Division based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. I have described this ground of appeal using plain language, based on the words in the Act and the cases that have interpreted the Act. Footnote 7 See Sibbald v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FCA 157 at paragraph 46. Footnote 8 Where a self-represented claimant is asking for permission to appeal a General Division decision, I should not apply the permission to appeal test in a mechanistic manner. I take this to mean I should review the law, the evidence, and the decision from the General Division. See for example Griffin v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 874; Karadeolian v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 615; and Joseph v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FC 391.