CL v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

CL v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Leave to appeal was refused because the Appeal Division is not satisfied there is a reasonable chance of success: the General Division's findings that the claimant took advantage of seasonal downtime to attend training and that his employer had little work were supported by contemporaneous evidence (Commission phone...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2022 SST 559
Parties
Claimant: C.L.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (appeal Division)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Availability for Work, Entitlement to Benefits, Leave to Appeal, Factual Review Standard
Source Language
english
Employment Insurance Social Security Administrative Law Availability for Work Entitlement to Benefits Leave to Appeal Factual Review Standard

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.L.

Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Division erred in finding the claimant not available for work from September 7, 2021
  2. 2 Whether the General Division made perverse or capricious factual findings or failed to consider evidence
  3. 3 Whether the appeal has a reasonable chance of success (arguable case)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Appeal Division is not satisfied there is a reasonable chance of success: the General Division's findings that the claimant took advantage of seasonal downtime to attend training and that his employer had little work were supported by contemporaneous evidence (Commission phone log, claimant testimony, pay stubs) and were not perverse, capricious or made without regard to the evidence.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused; appeal will not proceed