Y. I. v. Minister of Employment and Social Development

Y. I. v. Minister of Employment and Social Development Collection Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability Decision date 2019-04-01 Neutral citation 2019 SST 318 Reference number AD-19-114 Member Valerie Hazlett Parker Division Appeal Division Decision Application for leave to appeal refused Decision Content On this page Decision Introduction Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision and reasons Decision [1] Leave to appeal is refused. Overview [2] Y. I. is an author and researcher. She applied for a Canada Pension Plan disability pension and claimed that she was disabled by a repetitive strain injury to one arm and degenerative disc disease. She listed no physical limitations in the disability questionnaire that she completed with the application. [3] The Minister of Employment and Social Development refused the application. The Claimant appealed this decision to the Tribunal. The General Division scheduled a telephone hearing. The Claimant received notice of the hearing and did not attend. The General Division then decided that the appeal was abandoned and the file should be closed. Leave to appeal this decision to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division is refused because the Claimant has not presented a ground of appeal under the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESD Act). Issue [4] Has the Claimant presented a ground of appeal under the DESD Act upon which the appeal has a reasonable chance of success? Analysis [5] The DESD Act governs the Tribunal’s operation. It sets out only three narrow grounds of appeal that the Appeal Division can consider. They are that the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice or made a jurisdictional error, made an error in law, or based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.Footnote 1 In addition, leave to appeal is to be refused if the appeal has no reasonable chance of success.Footnote 2 Therefore, to be granted leave to appeal the Claimant must present at least one ground of appeal that falls under the DESD Act and upon which the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. [6] In the application requesting leave to appeal the Claimant argues that the General Divison had failed to observe a principle of natural justice. These principles are concerned with ensuring that all parties to an appeal have the opportunity to present their case to the Tribunal, to know and answer the legal case against them, and to have a decision made by an independent decision maker based on the law and the facts. [7] The Claimant attached various documents to support this ground of appeal, including a page of a Motion Record for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Small Claims Court, a copy of an email to the Human Rights Tribunal, and her resume. The Tribunal wrote to the Claimant, explained the grounds of appeal that can be considered, and asked that she provide such grounds. The Claimant responded with a number of letters regarding the materials that she had already submitted and a narrative about her written work. [8] None of the Claimant’s information points to any error made by the General Division. The Claimant did not explain why she did not attend the General Division hearing or suggest that she was prevented from doing so. It does not suggest that the Claimant was prevented from knowing the legal case against her, or that the Tribunal was not independent. Therefore, the appeal does not have a reasonable chance of success based on a failure to observe a principle of natural justice. [9] There is no suggestion that the General Division made an error in law or based its decision on any erroneous finding of fact. The General Division did not overlook or misconstrue any important information. Conclusion [10] Therefore, leave to appeal is refused. Representative: Y. I., Self-represented Footnotes Footnote 1 DESD Act s. 58(1) Footnote 2 DESD Act s. 58(2)