W. A. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Leave to appeal was granted because the member found that on the face of the record the General Division may not have properly stated and applied the law regarding just cause for voluntary leaving, giving the appeal a reasonable chance of success.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2015 SSTAD 702
- Parties
- Appellant: W. A.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
- Court
- Social Security Tribunal of Canada
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 4 June 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Insurance / Application for Leave to Appeal (appeal Division)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Just Cause for Voluntary Leaving, Statutory Interpretation of Ss 25 and 29, Grounds of Appeal Under S58(1), Procedural Fairness
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
W. A.
Appellant
Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / Application for Leave to Appeal (appeal Division)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
- 2 Whether the General Division failed to state and apply the law on just cause for voluntarily leaving employment
- 3 How sections 25 and 29 of the Employment Insurance Act interact in assessing entitlement
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted because the member found that on the face of the record the General Division may not have properly stated and applied the law regarding just cause for voluntary leaving, giving the appeal a reasonable chance of success.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal granted
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted
- Parties to address the interaction of sections 25 and 29 of the Employment Insurance Act on appeal
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
W. A. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission Collection Employment Insurance (EI) Decision date 2015-06-04 Neutral citation 2015 SSTAD 702 Reference number AD-14-595 Member Mark Borer Division Appeal Division Decision Application for leave to appeal granted Related decisions SST - W. A. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission - 2016 SSTADEI 77 - 2016-02-10 - Appeal Division Decision Content On this page Decision Decision [1] On October 31, 2014, a member of the General Division determined that the appeal of the Appellant from the previous determination of the Commission should be dismissed. In due course, the Appellant filed an application for leave to appeal to the Appeal Division. [2] Subsection 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act states that the only grounds of appeal are that: (a) The General Division [or the Board] failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction; (b) The General Division [or the Board] erred in law in making its decision, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; or (c) The General Division [or the Board] based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. [3] The Act also states that leave to appeal is to be refused if the appeal has “no reasonable chance of success”. [4] The Appellant admits that he voluntarily left his job to go back to school, but states that he was authorized by the Commission to attend an apprenticeship course. He submits a 16-digit reference code as evidence, and does not understand why the General Division member ruled against him. [5] Although I make no finding on the matter, I note that on the face of the record the General Division member may not have properly stated and applied the law before coming to his conclusions that the Appellant had not shown just cause to leave his employment. [6] I therefore find that this application has a reasonable chance of success. For that reason, this application for leave to appeal must be granted. [7] To ensure that this potentially novel issue is handled as efficiently as possible I would ask that the parties turn their minds to the interaction of sections 25 and 29 of the Employment Insurance Act.