J. J. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission and D. P.

J. J. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission and D. P.

Extension of time refused because the applicant did not establish a continuing intention to appeal, failed to provide a reasonable, corroborated explanation for the 69‑day delay, and failed to show an arguable case that the General Division made a reviewable error; absence of prejudice to other parties was insufficient to outweigh these deficiencies, so it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

Citation
2019 SST 703
Parties
Applicant/claimant: J. J.; Respondent Commission: Canada Employment Insurance Commission; Respondent Employer: D. P.
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / Application for Extension of Time to File Leave to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Disqualification From Benefits, Voluntary Leaving/just Cause, Procedural Fairness, Arguable Case, Evidence Admissibility
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Social Security Law Employment Insurance Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Disqualification From Benefits Voluntary Leaving/just Cause Procedural Fairness +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. J.

Applicant/claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent Commission

D. P.

Respondent Employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / Application for Extension of Time to File Leave to Appeal (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to file for leave to appeal under s.57 DESD Act using Gattellaro factors
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated a continuing intention to pursue the appeal
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused because the applicant did not establish a continuing intention to appeal, failed to provide a reasonable, corroborated explanation for the 69‑day delay, and failed to show an arguable case that the General Division made a reviewable error; absence of prejudice to other parties was insufficient to outweigh these deficiencies, so it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

Court Disposition

Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal refused; application dismissed