DF v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

DF v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Leave to appeal refused because the Applicant failed to establish an arguable case that the General Division committed procedural errors: the Commission did not notify non-attendance, there were no Commission witnesses to cross-examine, the Claimant had adequate opportunity to file written or oral replies and to object, and the General Division properly considered and gave little weight to the challenged Commission records rather than basing its decision on them.

Citation
2021 SST 13
Parties
Applicant / Claimant: D. F.; Respondent / Commission: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Appeal Division
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Qualifying Period, Procedural Fairness, Admissibility of Evidence, Cross Examination, Leave to Appeal/arguable Case
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Tribunal Procedure Extension of Qualifying Period Procedural Fairness Admissibility of Evidence Cross Examination Leave to Appeal/arguable Case

Case Brief

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. F.

Applicant / Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent / Commission

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Division committed procedural unfairness under DESDA s.58(1)
  2. 2 Whether failure of Commission to attend required notice to Claimant or prejudiced ability to cross-examine
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was denied opportunity to reply to Commission submissions

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because the Applicant failed to establish an arguable case that the General Division committed procedural errors: the Commission did not notify non-attendance, there were no Commission witnesses to cross-examine, the Claimant had adequate opportunity to file written or oral replies and to object, and the General Division properly considered and gave little weight to the challenged Commission records rather than basing its decision on them.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal is refused