Manterra Technologies Inc. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Manterra Technologies Inc. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission Collection Employment Insurance (EI) Decision date 2015-07-22 Neutral citation 2015 SSTAD 903 Reference number AD-13-832 Member Shu-Tai Cheng Division Appeal Division Decision Application for leave to appeal refused Decision Content On this page Introduction Issue Submissions Law and analysis Conclusion Introduction [1] The Applicant Employer applies to the Social Security Tribunal of Canada (Tribunal) for leave to appeal the decision of the Board of Referees (Board) issued on February 20, 2013. The Tribunal denied the Employer’s appeal on whether the Claimant lost his employment due to misconduct and should receive an indefinite disqualification pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act. [2] The Applicant filed an application for leave to appeal (Application) with the Appeal Division of the Tribunal on April 23, 2013, after having received the decision on February 26, 2013. The Application filed was filed outside of the current 30 day limit but within the previous 60 day limit of the Applicant having received the decision of the Board. [3] The Claimant was notified of the Application and given an opportunity to file written submissions. The Claimant filed submissions on July 3, 2015, within the time period provided by the Tribunal, stating that leave should be refused. The Respondent (Commission) filed a letter stating that it had no submissions on whether leave should be granted or refused. Issue [4] The Tribunal must decide if the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. Submissions [5] The Applicant submitted in support of the Application that: a) The Board based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard to the material before it as follows; b) The Claimant made gross misrepresentations of fact to the Commission and to the Board; c) These misrepresentations were accepted in spite of the Employer providing sworn affidavit information which contradicted the Claimant’s evidence; d) The Claimant’s evidence and the Employer’s evidence were accepted as “equally balanced”, and both the Commission and the Board found in favour of the Claimant; and e) The policy of engaging the employer in the employee’s claim for benefits is flawed. Law and analysis [6] According to subsections 56(1) and 58(3) of the Department of Employment and Social Development (DESD) Act, “an appeal to the Appeal Division may only be brought if leave to appeal is granted” and “the Appeal Division must either grant or refuse leave to appeal”. [7] Subsection 58(2) of the DESD Act provides that “leave to appeal is refused if the Appeal Division is satisfied that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success”. [8] Subsection 58(1) of the DESD Act states that the only grounds of appeal are the following: (a) The General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction; (b) The General Division erred in law in making its decision, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; or (c) The General Division based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. [9] For our purposes, the decision of the Board is considered to be a decision of the General Division. [10] The Tribunal must be satisfied that the reasons for appeal fall within any of the grounds of appeal and that at least one of the reasons has a reasonable chance of success, before leave can be granted. [11] The Applicant asserts that the Board based its decision on erroneous findings of fact. [12] The Applicant’s submissions, as set out in paragraph [5] above, were contained in the Board docket. [13] The Board considered the Applicant’s evidence and submissions at pages 2 to 6 of its decision. The Board decision noted that the Applicant’s evidence included the docket, the information that the Applicant provided to the Commission, the affidavits filed by the Applicant, and the Applicant’s evidence at the hearing. Under the heading “Findings of Fact Application of Law”, the Board further referenced the Applicant’s evidence and submissions. The remainder of the Board decision contained a statement of the applicable jurisprudence, an analysis of the facts, detailed findings of fact, an analysis of the facts and law, and the conclusion that the Claimant did not lose his job as a result of his own misconduct. [14] The Appeal Division of the Tribunal, on an application for leave to appeal, cannot review and evaluate the evidence that was presented before the Board outside of the grounds of appeal enumerated in subsection 58(1) of the DESD Act. An application for leave to appeal is not a new hearing of the Applicant’s case. [15] I have read and carefully considered the Board’s decision and the record. There is no indication that the Board failed to observe a principle of natural justice or that it otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction in coming to its decision. The Applicant has not identified any errors in law nor identified any erroneous findings of fact which the Board may have made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it, in coming to its decision. [16] While an applicant is not required to prove the grounds of appeal for the purposes of a leave application, at the very least, an applicant ought to set out some reasons which fall into the enumerated grounds of appeal. The Application is deficient in this regard, and I find that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. Conclusion [17] The Application is refused.