Claimant Denied EI Benefits for Voluntarily Quitting Job Without Just Cause

Citation: AT  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  123 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 8, 2025 (GE-25-3042) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: February 20, 2026 File number: AD-26-52 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. A. T.’s appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] A. T. is the Claimant. He applied for Employment Insurance regular benefits. [ 3 ] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that the Claimant voluntarily left his job without just cause, resulting in a disqualification to benefits. Footnote 1 The Commission reversed its decision on his availability for work. Footnote 2 [ 4 ] The General Division decided that the Claimant had voluntarily left his job without just cause. It found he had reasonable alternatives to leaving his job, so his appeal was dismissed. Footnote 3 [ 5 ] The Claimant is now asking permission to appeal and argues that the General Division made errors. Footnote 4 [ 6 ] I am denying permission to appeal because the Claimant’s arguments don’t show that he has an arguable case upon which the appeal might succeed. So, I can’t give him permission to appeal. Footnote 5 Issue [ 7 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made a legal error, an important factual error and didn’t follow a fair process when it decided that the Claimant voluntarily left his job without just cause? Analysis [ 8 ] The law says that I can consider four types of errors, and they include, a failure to follow a fair process, jurisdictional, legal, and important factual errors. Footnote 6 [ 9 ] I can only give the Claimant permission to appeal if there’s an “arguable case” that the General Division made a reviewable error that gives his appeal a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 7 [ 10 ] I’ve looked at the General Division decision, the Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division, and all of the file documents before making my decision. I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal The Claimant’s arguments to the Appeal Division [ 11 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division made a legal error, an important factual error and didn’t follow a fair process for the following reasons: The General Division didn’t properly apply section 25 of the Employment Insurance Act ( [NAME] Act) The General Division didn’t adequately consider that he acted in good faith and relied on guidance that he received from an authorized government official He was denied procedural fairness because the [government official] withdrew his training referral retroactively and he wasn’t informed There is no arguable case that the General Division made any legal errors [ 12 ] The General Division makes a legal error when it misinterprets a law, doesn’t follow a court decision it has to follow, or doesn’t give adequate reasons for its decision. [ 13 ] The Commission made two initial decisions. It decided that the Claimant had voluntarily left his job without just cause when he failed to resume his employment when recalled. This resulted in a disqualification to benefits. They maintained this decision on reconsideration. [ 14 ] The Commission also decided that the Claimant had not proven he was available for work because he was taking a training course on his own initiative which resulted in a disentitlement to benefits. However, the Commission reversed their decision on reconsideration. Footnote 8 [ 15 ] The only issue before the General Division was the voluntary leave decision made by the Commission. [ 16 ] The [NAME] Act says that voluntarily leaving an employment includes the refusal to resume an employment, in which case the voluntary leaving occurs when the employment is supposed to be resumed. Footnote 9 [ 17 ] The General Division in this case had to first decide whether the Claimant voluntarily left his job by failing to resume his employment. If so, then it had to decide if he had no reasonable alternative to leaving, having regard to all the circumstances. Footnote 10 [ 18 ] I’ve reproduced section 25 of the [NAME] Act because that’s the section the Claimant says the General Division didn’t properly apply. [ 19 ] Section 25 of the [NAME] Act says: 25(1)  For the purposes of this Part, a claimant is unemployed and capable of and available for work during a period when the claimant is (a)  attending a course or program of instruction or training — at the claimant’s own expense, under an employment support measure referred to in paragraph 59(a) or under a measure that is the subject of an agreement under section 63 — to which the Commission, or an authority that the Commission designates, has referred the claimant; or (b)  participating in any other employment activity (i)  for which assistance has been provided for the claimant under a prescribed employment support measure — other than one referred to in paragraph 59(a) or (c) — or a prescribed measure that is the subject of an agreement under section 63, and (ii)  to which the Commission, or an authority that the Commission designates, has referred the claimant. [ 20 ] To get [NAME] regular benefits, a person has to prove their availability for work. Section 25 relieves a person from proving their availability while they are on a program or training when they’ve been referred by the Commission or a designated authority. [ 21 ] The General Division accepted that the Claimant had been referred to training under section 25, but found that it was more likely than not, that he was also told by the X representative that he would need to go back to work when recalled. Footnote 11 It wasn’t persuaded by the Claimant’s assertion that he wasn’t told he would have to drop the training if he was recalled to work. Footnote 12 [ 22 ] The General Division gave weight to the Claimant’s testimony that he had been told by the X representative if he found a new job while taking English classes, that he would have to accept the new job and drop the training. [ 23 ] I see no arguable case that the General Division made any legal errors in its decision. Footnote 13 It correctly cited the relevant provisions and applied the law in its decision when it dealt with the voluntary leave issue. Footnote 14 It considered all of his circumstances, including the training referral. As noted above, the Claimant’s availability for work wasn’t in dispute. Footnote 15 So, there is no arguable case that it didn’t properly apply the relevant law in its decision based on the legal issue before it. There is no arguable case that the General Division made any important factual errors [ 24 ] An error of fact happens when the General Division has “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 16 Put another way, the General Division makes an important factual error when it reaches its decision by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. [ 25 ] The General Division found that the Claimant was laid off from his job on May 28, 2025. Footnote 17 It also found that he was recalled to work with a start date of August 18, 2025, but that he told his employer that he wouldn’t be returning to work. Footnote 18 [ 26 ] It concluded that he voluntarily left his job on August 18, 2025 because that was the date he was supposed to resume his job. Footnote 19 [ 27 ] The General Division then considered whether the Claimant had just cause. It considered the reasons he provided, including that his shift was changing, that he had increased responsibility, and a cash bonus that he was promised wasn’t paid, that a $3.00 pay raise never followed and that he had been referred to take English classes. [ 28 ] It also considered his overall concern that if he dropped out of schooling and returned to work the employer would take advantage of him. Footnote 20 [ 29 ] The General Division concluded that he didn’t have just cause to leave his job as there were reasonable alternatives such as returning to work when he was recalled by the employer, while continuing to look for and secure another job. Footnote 21 [ 30 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division didn’t adequately consider that he acted in good faith and relied on guidance that he received from an authorized government official. But the General Division addressed this argument and explained why it preferred the evidence from X representative. Footnote 22 [ 31 ] I see no arguable case that the General Division based its decision on any important factual errors. Footnote 23 Its key findings about the voluntary leave issue are consistent with the evidence. I can’t reweigh the evidence in order to provide him with a more favourable outcome. There is no arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process [ 32 ] I see no arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process. Footnote 24 The Claimant’s arguments relating to this ground were about how things unfolded between him and the X representative. However, unfairness in general against a third party isn’t a reviewable error. There is no indication that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process in some way. Conclusion [ 33 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. It has no reasonable chance of success. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act ( [NAME] Act). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See Commission’s initial and reconsideration decision at pages GD3A-30 to GD3A-31, GD3A-120, GD3B-28 to GD3B-29 and GD3B-85. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See General Division decision at pages AD1A-1 to AD1A-7. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See Application to the Appeal Division at pages AD-1 to AD1-9. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2016  FC  11 at paragraph 12 and sections 56(1) and 58(2) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See pages GD3A-30 to GD3A-31, GD3A-120, GD3B-28 to GD3B-29 and GD3B-85. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 29(b.1)(ii) of the [NAME] Act. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See section 29(c) of the [NAME] Act. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See paragraphs 29-32 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See paragraph 31 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See section 58(1)(b) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See paragraphs 9-10 and 17-19 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See pages GD4B-1 to GD4B-8. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See paragraph 12 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See paragraphs 13-14 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See paragraphs 15-16 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See paragraphs 20–26 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See paragraphs 3, 20, 33 and 35 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See paragraph 31 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See section 58(1)(a) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 24 referrer