E. G. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

E. G. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show any ground that has a reasonable chance of success; the General Division properly applied s.18(1)(a) and precedent (Faucher) and the applicant's submissions merely invite re‑weighing of evidence, which does not meet the statutory leave test.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 SSTADEI 312
Parties
Applicant: E. G.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance (disentitlement Under S.18(1)(a)) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Appeal Division
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Employment Insurance, Availability for Work, Leave to Appeal, Disentitlement Under S.18(1)(a)
Source Language
english
Employment Law Administrative Law Social Security Law Employment Insurance Availability for Work Leave to Appeal Disentitlement Under S.18(1)(a)

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. G.

Applicant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance (disentitlement Under S.18(1)(a)) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal has a reasonable chance of success
  2. 2 Whether the General Division erred in finding the applicant failed to prove availability for work under s.18(1)(a) of the Employment Insurance Act
  3. 3 Whether the General Division misapplied or failed to apply relevant precedent (Faucher)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show any ground that has a reasonable chance of success; the General Division properly applied s.18(1)(a) and precedent (Faucher) and the applicant's submissions merely invite re‑weighing of evidence, which does not meet the statutory leave test.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the Appeal Division refused