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 Tribunal refused to rescind or amend because the grievance settlement and reinstatement, although undisputed and occurring after the decision, were not decisive of whether the Applicant's act or omission constituted misconduct under section 30 of the EI Act; therefore the test for rescinding or amending the decision was not met.
Source excerpt
The application was dismissed because it did not present new facts nor show that the Appeal Division’s decision was based on a material factual mistake; the Appeal Division reasonably interpreted the employment contract as obliging the employee to comply with company policies, including the vaccination policy, and that finding supported the conclusion of misconduct and disentitlement to EI benefits.
Source excerpt
The application was refused because it was filed more than one year after the Appeal Division decision was communicated; DESDA s.66(2) imposes a mandatory one‑year limit and leaves no discretion to consider an out‑of‑time application.
Source excerpt
Applicant failed to demonstrate any new fact that was not discoverable with reasonable diligence before the Original Hearing; because none of the 13 alleged facts were new or undiscoverable and most were already in the record or known to the Applicant, the R/A Application failed and must be dismissed.
Source excerpt
Dismissal because the claimant failed to present any new material fact that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence; the documents relied on were already before the General Division or were discoverable and not material to the Appeal Division's permission to appeal decision, therefore no basis existed to rescind or amend the Appeal Division decision.
Source excerpt
The application was refused because the claimant did not present new facts nor show the decision was made without knowledge of or based on a mistake as to a material fact, and the Appeal Division's interpretation that the one-time credit must be applied to the first claim on or after September 27, 2020 was consistent with the text, context and purpose of s.153.17(1) of the EI Act and prior Appeal Division decisions.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was refused because the Claimant did not establish any arguable reviewable error: the invoice did not reference Employer #1, the General Division reasonably found the Claimant's testimony unpersuasive, the Claimant had opportunity to provide a revised invoice but did not, and he failed to show new facts or a material mistake that could justify rescinding or amending the decision, so the appeal had no reasonable chance of success.
Source excerpt
The application to rescind or amend was refused because the appellant failed to show decisive new facts or that the original decision was made without knowledge of, or based on a mistake as to, a material fact; the ADHD report did not meet the new facts test and did not alter the undisputed fact that the appellant elected extended parental benefits and did not seek to change that election until after the Commission had started issuing payments, at which point the election was irrevocable.
Source excerpt
The application was dismissed because the appellant did not present facts that were 'new' under the governing test nor show the original decision was made without knowledge of or based on a mistake about a material fact; the additional documents and travel particulars related to events before the decision and were not decisive of whether he had just cause to quit.
Source excerpt
The application was dismissed because the screening document was discoverable prior to the General Division hearing and is not reasonably likely to change the outcome; therefore it fails the DESDA tests for being both new and material even though the application was treated as timely.
Source excerpt
Explore more
