Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Federal Court upheld CRA’s CERB ineligibility decision against Jason Verma, finding the review procedurally fair and reasonable and dismissing judicial review.
The General Division correctly applied the legal test for voluntary leaving under s.29(c): on the evidence before it the Claimant had reasonable alternatives (including returning to work where employer indicated at least 30 hours/week and past weeks showed 35–60 hours), did not demonstrate he had no reasonable alternative to leaving, and therefore did not have just cause; the disqualification from benefits as of April 2, 2023 stands.
Source excerpt
The Appeal Division intervened because the General Division made reviewable errors of fact and law; where documentary evidence showed the claimant continued to perform accounting duties (cheque issuance and deposits) there was no seven‑day interruption and those benefit periods were cancelled (Dec 16, 2018; Dec 20, 2019; Dec 26, 2021); where there was no evidence of services in the critical weeks, earnings stopped and the claims stand (Dec 20, 2020; Dec 25, 2022; Dec 20, 2023). The Commission lawfully replaced monetary penalties with warnings and the Tribunal will not interfere with that disc…
Source excerpt
On the balance of probabilities Claimant did not have a severe disability by December 31, 2008 because contemporaneous medical evidence showed at most minor left‑ear conductive hearing loss and no other documented functional limitations that would preclude work; Claimant's personal characteristics and earnings history indicated residual capacity for substantially gainful occupations, and retrospective evidence and missing records did not establish the required severe and prolonged disability.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal refused because the applicant produced no new evidence and failed to present an arguable case that the General Division erred; the General Division correctly applied s.67(3.1) CPP to fix the pension start date as the month after application for applicants under 65, and the Tribunal lacks authority to order the Minister to grant additional retroactive payments absent the Minister's discretionary decision to do so.
Source excerpt
Permission to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to raise an arguable case of unfair procedure or any legal, jurisdictional or factual error by the General Division, and the evidence asserted as new (a 2023 doctor’s note) was already before the General Division and, regardless, is irrelevant to whether the disability was severe and prolonged by the MQP of November 30, 2015.
Source excerpt
The General Division erred in law by applying the temporary exemption in s.77.997 because the vacation pay became due and payable only during the planned leave period in August and not at separation; consequently the exemption does not apply and the earnings must be allocated under section 36(8)(b) over the period August 4 to 30, 2025, based on the claimant's normal weekly earnings.
Source excerpt
The General Division did not err on fact or procedurally, but exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating an allocation and overpayment (week of April 6, 2025) that were not subject to a reconsideration decision; the Appeal Division rescinded the General Division's findings and overpayment for that week, and confirmed the General Division's decision as to the May 2025 reconsidered allocations and the $2,004.00 overpayment for April 13, 20 and 27, 2025.
Source excerpt
On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal found the appellant's disability ceased being severe in January 2021 because she began regular, sustainable work for her business at that time, income thereafter increased, and her testimony was credible; the Minister did not prove cessation as of end of June 2020, and the appellant is not entitled to CPP disability pension from January 2021 onward, permitting recovery of overpayments after that date.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal refused because the Appeal Division found no arguable reviewable error: the General Division applied the correct legal tests, conducted a fair hearing (interpreter present, opportunity to present evidence), reasonably found the applicant was outside Canada without fitting statutory exceptions and failed to prove availability for work; therefore there is no reasonable chance of success on appeal.
Source excerpt
Explore more
