JC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

JC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission Collection Employment Insurance (EI) Decision date 2024-01-31 Neutral citation 2024 SST 98 Reference number AD-23-991 Member Pierre Lafontaine Division Appeal Division Decision Appeal allowed Related decisions SST - JC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission - 2023 SST 1913 - 2023-10-27 - General Division SST - JC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission - 2024 SST 278 - 2024-03-19 - General Division Subjects Appeal Division - Leave to appeal - Arguable case EI - Denied for voluntary leave/quit Procedural fairness - Right to present your case Decision Content [TRANSLATION] Citation: JC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2024 SST 98 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: J. C. Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission Representative: Josée Lachance Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated October 27, 2023 (GE-23-1053) Tribunal member: Pierre Lafontaine Type of hearing: Teleconference Decision date: January 31, 2024 File number: AD-23-991 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [1] Permission to appeal is granted and the appeal is allowed. Overview [2] From October 22, 2018, to May 17, 2022, inclusive, the Applicant (Claimant) worked as a maintenance worker for a hospital and stopped working for that employer. After that period of employment, the Claimant worked for two other employers. [3] On November 6, 2022, the Claimant applied for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. A benefit period was established effective November 6, 2022. [4] On January 12, 2023, the Respondent (Commission) told him that it did not accept the hours worked for the hospital because he voluntarily left his job with that employer without good cause within the meaning of the law. It disqualified him from receiving benefits from May 15, 2022. [5] The Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider its decision but the Commission upheld its initial decision. The Claimant appealed to the General Division. [6] The General Division proceeded with the hearing in the Claimant’s absence. It found that the Claimant did not have just cause for voluntarily leaving his job because he had reasonable alternatives to leaving. The General Division upheld the Claimant’s disqualification effective May 15, 2022. [7] In support of his application for permission to appeal, the Claimant argues that he tried to join the hearing but that nobody answered. He would like the opportunity to dispute his former employer’s story. Issues [8] Should permission to appeal be granted? [9] Did the General Division fail to observe a principle of natural justice? Analysis [10] After reviewing the file, I decided to hold a settlement conference. The Claimant explained his efforts to attend the General Division hearing. He waited but did not get an answer. As soon as he received the General Division decision, he filed his application for permission to appeal. [11] The Commission did not find any reason to doubt the Claimant’s version of events. It agrees that he did not have an opportunity to be heard and that there was a breach of natural justice. [12] The concept of “natural justice” includes the Claimant’s right to a fair hearing. A fair hearing assumes the opportunity to be heard, the right to know what is being alleged against the party, and the opportunity to respond to those allegations. [13] I acknowledge the General Division’s efforts to make it possible for the Claimant to attend the hearing. I am still of the view that there was a breach of natural justice. [14] For these reasons, permission to appeal is granted and the Claimant’s appeal is allowed. Conclusion [15] Permission to appeal is granted and the appeal is allowed. The file returns to the General Division for reconsideration.