D. F. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Institution:
Social Security Tribunal decision - Appeal Division - Leave to Appeal decision
Member:
Pierre Lafontaine
Hearing date:
N/A
Hearing type:
N/A
Between:
D. F. and Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Decision:
Application for leave to appeal is refused
Decision date:
March 24, 2015
Reference number:
AD-14-237
Citation:
D. F. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2015 SSTAD 399

Decision

[1] The Tribunal refuses leave to appeal to the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal.

Introduction

[2] On March 25, 2014, the General Division of the Tribunal determined that:

[3] The Applicant requested leave to appeal to the Appeal Division on April 30, 2014.

Issue

[4] The Tribunal must decide if the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.

The law

[5] According to subsections 56(1) and 58(3) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (the “DESD Act”), “an appeal to the Appeal Division may only be brought if leave to appeal is granted” and “the Appeal Division must either grant or refuse leave to appeal”.

[6] Subsection 58(2) of the DESD Act provides that “leave to appeal is refused if the Appeal Division is satisfied that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success”.

Analysis

[7] Subsection 58(1) of the DESD Act states that the only grounds of appeal are the following:

  1. (a) The General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
  2. (b) The General Division erred in law in making its decision, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; or
  3. (c) The General Division 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.

[8] The Applicant needs to satisfy the Tribunal that the reasons for appeal fall within any of the above mentioned grounds of appeal and that at least one of the reasons has a reasonable chance of success, before leave can be granted.

[9] In her April 30th, 2014 application for leave to appeal, the Applicant states that she still believes that she did more than a reasonable person would do when she walked in the Service Canada and followed all instructions provided to her.  She mentions that she will consult a legal representative and file more data after obtaining legal advice.  No follow up was done by the Applicant in this regard.

[10] On February 16, 2015, the Tribunal requested that the Applicant submit in detail her grounds of appeal on or before March 6, 2015 before deciding on the leave application.  The Applicant was dissatisfied with the delay to submit her grounds so the Tribunal granted an extension of time until March 15, 2015. The Applicant filed her grounds of appeal on March 12, 2015.

[11] The Applicant filed the following grounds of appeal:

  1. a) The General Division erred in law in making its decision;
  2. b) The General Division based its decision on an erroneous finding and without regards for the material before it;
  3. c) The General Division applied the wrong test;
  4. d) The General Division did not lay out my facts in the exact form as they happened.

[12] The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not identified any errors of jurisdiction or any failure by the General Division to observe a principle of natural justice.  It has not identified errors in law nor identified any erroneous findings of fact which the General Division may have made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it, in coming to its decision.

[13] The Applicant submits that the General Division made an error in law without identifying what error in law was made and submits that the General Division did not consider the material before it without mentioning what material was not considered.  The Applicant also mentions that the General Division applied the wrong legal test without mentioning what test should have been applied.

[14] It is not for the Member deciding whether to grant leave to appeal to clarify the grounds of appeal of an applicant or to explore the merits of the decision of the General Division.

[15] While an applicant is not required to prove the grounds of appeal for the purposes of a leave application, at the very least, an applicant ought to set out some reasons which fall into the enumerated grounds of appeal.  The Application is deficient in this regard and the Applicant has not satisfied the Tribunal that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.

Conclusion

[16] The Tribunal refuses leave to appeal to the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal.

Date modified: