Commission de l’assurance-emploi du Canada c KD

Commission de l’assurance-emploi du Canada c KD

The Appeal is allowed because the General Division erred in law by relying on the Commission’s re‑examination policy in circumstances where the Commission had exercised its s.153.161 verification power; the Commission’s exercises of discretion under s.153.161 and s.52 were lawful and judicial, and the matter is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2025 TSS 131
Parties
Appellant: Commission de l’assurance-emploi du Canada; Respondent: K. D.
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part. General Division decision set aside insofar as it relied on the Commission’s re‑examination policy; Appeal Division finds Commission exercised its discretion judicially under s.153.161 and s.52 and remits matter to General Division to decide availability from 29 November 2020.
Legal Topics
Availability for Work, Discretionary Power, Re‑examination/review Policy, Procedural Fairness (right to Be Heard), Bad Faith
Source Language
french
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Constitutional Law Availability for Work Discretionary Power Re‑examination/review Policy Procedural Fairness (right to Be Heard) +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commission de l’assurance-emploi du Canada

Appellant

K. D.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal / Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Division erred in law by relying on the Commission’s re‑examination policy when s.153.161 was engaged
  2. 2 Whether the General Division’s procedure was unfair because it did not give the claimant a clear opportunity to file detailed job‑search records
  3. 3 Whether the Commission lawfully and judicially exercised its discretionary powers under s.153.161 and s.52 of the Employment Insurance Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal is allowed because the General Division erred in law by relying on the Commission’s re‑examination policy in circumstances where the Commission had exercised its s.153.161 verification power; the Commission’s exercises of discretion under s.153.161 and s.52 were lawful and judicial, and the matter is remitted to the General Division to determine, on the merits, whether the claimant was available for work as of 29 November 2020; additionally the General Division’s procedure was procedurally unfair for failing to give the claimant a clear opportunity to file detailed job‑search records.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part. General Division decision set aside insofar as it relied on the Commission’s re‑examination policy; Appeal Division finds Commission exercised its discretion judicially under s.153.161 and s.52 and remits matter to General Division to decide availability from 29 November 2020.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Replace General Division decision only on the issue of the Commission’s exercise of discretion: conclude Commission acted judicially under s.153.161 and s.52.