J. K. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Social Security Tribunal decision - Appeal Division - Leave to Appeal decision
Pierre Lafontaine
Hearing date:
Hearing type:
J. K. and Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Application for leave to appeal is refused
Decision date:
March 27, 2015
Reference number:
J. K. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2015 SSTAD 433


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


[2] On July 17, 2014, the General Division of the Tribunal determined that:

[3] The Applicant requested leave to appeal to the Appeal Division on August 15, 2014.


[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”.


[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] In regards to the application for permission to appeal, 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] The Applicant, in his leave to appeal application, essentially repeats the arguments he made before the General Division.  He argues that he received 28 week severance pay and he believed his claim would start after this waiting period. He misinterpreted the ROE due to his learning disabilities and reading comprehension. According to the ROE, he believed EI was notified to start claim after waiting period was up as form indicated.  He also mentions that a learning disability is not ignorance of the law. He finally states that he had enough hours.

[10] The Applicant is basically asking this Tribunal to re-evaluate and reweigh the evidence that was put before the General Division which is the province of the trier of fact and not of an appeal court.  It is not for the Member deciding whether to grant leave to appeal to reweigh the evidence or explore the merits of the decision of the General Division.

[11] 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.


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

Date modified: