M. L. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

M. L. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission Collection Employment Insurance (EI) Decision date 2016-10-26 Neutral citation 2016 SSTADEI 527 Reference number AD-14-578 Member Mark Borer Division Appeal Division Decision Appeal allowed Related decisions SST - M. L. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission and NWT Construction Ltd. - 2015 SSTAD 1013 - 2015-08-26 - Appeal Division Decision Content On this page Decision Introduction Analysis Conclusion Decision [1] On consent, the appeal is allowed. The matter is returned to the General Division for reconsideration. Introduction [2] Previously, a General Division member determined that the Appellant’s appeal from the previous determination of the Commission should be dismissed. The Appellant appealed that decision to the Appeal Division and leave to appeal was granted. [3] This appeal was decided on the record. Analysis [4] Among other arguments, the Appellant submits that the he was not informed of the General Division hearing. He asks that his appeal be allowed and that a new hearing be held. [5] It has long been held that the right to be heard is a fundamental natural justice right and it is well established that the denial of this right is a breach of the principles of natural justice that constitutes grounds for a new hearing. [6] The Commission, in their submissions, agrees that it would be in the interests of justice for a new hearing to be ordered. [7] The Employer, however, opposed a new hearing. In doing so, they highlighted alleged unusual behavior on the part of the Appellant’s then representative and maintained that the Appellant had not shown that the Tribunal had violated his natural justice rights. [8] Because of the above submissions, I originally determined that a hearing was necessary to resolve whether or not the appeal should succeed. [9] Since that date, however, the Appellant has replaced his former representative with legal counsel and the Employer has withdrawn from the appeal. I note that both remaining parties agree that a new hearing should be ordered and have fully explained their respective positions. [10] In light of this, and bearing in mind my requirement to conduct proceedings as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit, I no longer feel it is necessary to hold a hearing to resolve this matter. [11] Instead, I am prepared to give effect to the shared view of the remaining parties that a new General Division hearing is required so that the parties can argue their positions in full. Conclusion [12] On consent, the appeal is allowed. The case will be returned to the General Division for reconsideration.