RD v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

RD v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The General Division did not breach procedural fairness because there was no evidence the Claimant told the member he expected a Tribunal‑provided representative or that he was unprepared and sought an adjournment; moreover, past employment evidence (T4) is insufficient to prove availability for work as a part‑time student because availability requires demonstrable willingness to accept suitable work and absence of personal conditions; therefore the Claimant was disentitled to EI benefits and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
2022 SST 471
Parties
Appellant: R. D.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Social Security Tribunal Appeal Employment Insurance / Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Claimant disentitled from Employment Insurance benefits.
Legal Topics
Availability for Work, Student Status, Procedural Fairness, Representation, Adjournment, Overpayment
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Tribunal Procedure Availability for Work Student Status Procedural Fairness Representation Adjournment +1 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. D.

Appellant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Social Security Tribunal Appeal Employment Insurance / Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the General Division fail to follow rules of procedural fairness by proceeding with the hearing without providing a representative?
  2. 2 Did the General Division ignore the Claimant’s past work history in assessing availability for work?
  3. 3 Whether past work history (T4) can establish future availability while a part‑time student

Ratio Decidendi

The General Division did not breach procedural fairness because there was no evidence the Claimant told the member he expected a Tribunal‑provided representative or that he was unprepared and sought an adjournment; moreover, past employment evidence (T4) is insufficient to prove availability for work as a part‑time student because availability requires demonstrable willingness to accept suitable work and absence of personal conditions; therefore the Claimant was disentitled to EI benefits and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Claimant disentitled from Employment Insurance benefits.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Claimant is disentitled from receiving Employment Insurance benefits effective September 28, 2020.