SE v Commission de l’assurance-emploi du Canada
Permission to appeal was refused because the claimant failed to raise any arguable reviewable error; the General Division reasonably accepted the employer’s evidence, made credibility findings that supported a finding of misconduct, and acted within its jurisdiction so the appeal had no reasonable chance of success.
- Citation
- 2024 SST 1181
- Parties
- Appellant: S. E.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
- Court
- Social Security Tribunal of Canada
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 3 October 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Insurance / Leave to Appeal (permission Stage)
- Outcome
- Permission to appeal refused; appeal will not proceed.
- Legal Topics
- Misconduct, Disqualification From EI Benefits, Leave to Appeal, Credibility Findings, Standard of Review
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
S. E.
Appellant
Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / Leave to Appeal (permission Stage)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the General Division erred in finding the claimant lost his job for misconduct
- 2 Whether the General Division made a reviewable error of fact or law warranting permission to appeal
- 3 Whether the General Division’s hearing process was procedurally unfair
Ratio Decidendi
Permission to appeal was refused because the claimant failed to raise any arguable reviewable error; the General Division reasonably accepted the employer’s evidence, made credibility findings that supported a finding of misconduct, and acted within its jurisdiction so the appeal had no reasonable chance of success.
Court Disposition
Permission to appeal refused; appeal will not proceed.
Orders
- Permission to appeal refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment