D. P. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify or explain a reviewable error under s.58(1) and therefore the application had no reasonable chance of success.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: 2016 SSTADEI 209
Parties: Applicant: D. P.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court: Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 15 April 2016
Procedural Posture: Employment Insurance Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Appeal Division
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics: Employment Insurance, Leave to Appeal, Natural Justice, Misconduct Termination, Disability/drug Dependency Discrimination
Source Language: english

Employment Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Social Benefits Employment Insurance Leave to Appeal Natural Justice Misconduct Termination +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2

Parties

D. P.

Applicant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Appeal Division

Legal Issues

1 Whether the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice or acted beyond its jurisdiction
2 Whether the General Division erred in law
3 Whether the General Division made a perverse or capricious finding of fact

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify or explain a reviewable error under s.58(1) and therefore the application had no reasonable chance of success.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

Leave to appeal refused

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.