Claimant Denied Employment Insurance Benefits for Being Outside Canada

Citation: BP  v  Canada [NAME] Commission , 2026  [NAME]  263 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Representative: R. P. Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated February 10, 2026 (GE-26-202) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: March 27, 2026 File number: AD-26-167 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matters Issues I am not giving the Applicant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. The appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] B. P. is the Applicant. She applied for [NAME] ( [NAME] ) regular benefits on April 16, 2025. [ 3 ] The Canada [NAME] Commission (Commission) denied the Applicant [NAME] benefits for three reasons. First, because she voluntarily left her job without just cause. Second, because she was out of Canada and not entitled to [NAME] benefits while she was outside of Canada. Third, because she hadn’t shown she was available for work as considered by [NAME] law. [ 4 ] The Applicant asked the Commission to reconsider but it didn’t change its position. The Applicant then appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal) General Division. The General Division decided the Applicant did have just cause for voluntarily leaving her job. But the General Division agreed with the Commission that the Applicant could not get [NAME] benefits. This is because the Applicant was outside of Canada and not available for work as considered by [NAME] law. [ 5 ] The Applicant has now asked for permission to appeal to the Appeal Division. I am denying the Applicant’s request for permission to appeal because there is no reasonable chance of success. Preliminary matters The Applicant didn’t explain the General Division made [ 6 ] I asked the Applicant to send in information about why she was appealing the General Division decision. The Applicant checked off that the General Division made a natural justice error, an error of law, and an important error of fact. But in her appeal reasons, the Applicant focused solely on the one issue the General Division had decided in her favour. [ 7 ] On March 16, 2026, I wrote the Applicant and explained that three issues were before the General Division: Whether she voluntarily left her job without just cause; Whether she was out of Canada and disentitled to [NAME] benefits; and Whether she was “available” as considered by [NAME] law [ 8 ] The General Division agreed with the Applicant that she voluntarily left her job with just cause. However, it found she was out of Canada and was disentitled to [NAME] benefits for that reason. Additionally, the General Division found she wasn’t available for work as considered by [NAME] law. I asked the Applicant for her reasons for appealing those issues. The Applicant sent a response which has been considered in this decision. Footnote 1 Issues [ 9 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Is there an arguable case that the General Division didn’t provide a fair process? b) Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error of law? c) Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an important error of fact? I am not giving the Applicant permission to appeal [ 10 ] An appeal can only go ahead if the Appeal Division gives an applicant permission to appeal. Footnote 2 I have to be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 3 There has to be an arguable ground upon which the appeal might succeed. Footnote 4 [ 11 ] There are only certain grounds of appeal that the Appeal Division can consider. Footnote 5 Briefly, the Applicant has to show the General Division did one of the following: It acted unfairly in some way. It decided an issue it shouldn’t have, or didn’t decide an issue it should have. This is also called an error of jurisdiction. It made an error of law. It based its decision on an important error of fact. [ 12 ] So, for the Applicant’s appeal to go ahead, I have to find there is a reasonable chance of success on any of those grounds. But an appeal to the Appeal Division isn’t an opportunity to present new evidence. The Appeal Division looks at the evidence that was before the General Division. As well, unless there is an error, I can’t just reweigh the evidence that was before the General Division. Footnote 6 So, even if I would have decided the case differently, I can’t make changes to the decision unless there is an error identified. There is no arguable case the General Division didn’t provide a fair process [ 13 ] A fair process is also called natural justice. These principles include making sure parties have a fair opportunity to present their case and have it decided by an impartial decision-maker. [ 14 ] The Applicant’s husband has been assisting her in this process because of her English. In the application to appeal, it’s noted that “they didn’t allow me to speak otherwise I could explain properly”. Footnote 7 It’s assumed that the Applicant’s husband wrote this. [ 15 ] I have reviewed the hearing recording. There was an interpreter present. The interpreter translated what the Tribunal Member said to the Applicant, and the reverse was also true. There has been no suggestion that the interpreter’s translation was faulty. So, I accept that what the interpreter said were the translated words of the Applicant. [ 16 ] The Applicant asked the Tribunal Member if her husband could speak on her behalf. Footnote 8 The Tribunal Member explained that she’s the one who applied for benefits and has the most direct information. Footnote 9 The Tribunal Member also said if the Applicant’s husband has additional information she would hear from him after. [ 17 ] Later in the hearing, the Applicant’s husband testified under oath. Footnote 10 The General Division told the Applicant’s husband he could submit a doctor’s note if a doctor had recommended that he move out of Canada. Footnote 11 [ 18 ] The Applicant’s husband later wrote and asked for an extension of time to send in a doctor’s note. Footnote 12 The General Division ultimately didn’t extend the time to submit this note. Footnote 13 It said the doctor’s note would only go to the issue of whether the Applicant had just cause to leave her job. Since the General Division found in the Applicant’s favour on that issue, it was unnecessary for the husband to submit a doctor’s letter. [ 19 ] I don’t find that anyone was prevented from testifying or providing information to the General Division. The General Division gave the Applicant, and her husband, the opportunity to present all the information they wished. There is no arguable case the General Division didn’t provide a fair process. There is no arguable case the General Division made an error of law [ 20 ] Some examples of an error of law are: if the General Division doesn’t apply the correct legal test; if the General Division uses the correct legal test but doesn’t apply it correctly. [ 21 ] The General Division explained that there were several issues that had to be decided and explained the law for those issues. Footnote 14 The three issues were: Did the Applicant voluntarily leave her job without just cause? Was the Applicant outside of Canada and therefore disentitled to [NAME] benefits? Was the Applicant available for work within the meaning of [NAME] law for each working day? The General Division found the Applicant had just cause for leaving her job [ 22 ] The Applicant was successful on the issue of voluntary leaving. Footnote 15 So, I won’t address that issue here. But many of the Applicant’s submissions are surrounding why she had to accompany her husband to Texas. The General Division accepted her evidence on this issue. To be clear, the General Division accepted the Applicant’s husband had a health issue. Because of that health issue he decided to leave Canada and the Applicant went with him. The General Division found the Applicant had just cause for voluntarily leaving her job. [ 23 ] The Applicant succeeded on the issue of voluntarily leaving her job. But there were two other reasons the Commission said the Applicant couldn’t receive [NAME] benefits. The Applicant wasn’t successful on the issue of being outside of Canada [ 24 ] As the General Division explained, the Applicant was out of Canada for most of the time. Footnote 16 The Applicant didn’t dispute that she was outside of Canada. [ 25 ] The law is clear that if someone is outside of Canada they can’t receive [NAME] benefits unless they fall under one of the narrow exceptions. Footnote 17 The General Division decided that none of the narrow exceptions applied in the Applicant’s case. Footnote 18 None of the Applicant’s submissions suggest that the General Division misunderstood her position. [ 26 ] Quite simply, the Applicant went with her husband to Texas because they felt the warm weather was better for his medical condition. There is no exception in the [NAME] that covers this situation. The exceptions are prescribed by law. So, if someone doesn’t fall under one of the exceptions, they aren’t entitled to receive [NAME] benefits. The General Division found the Applicant wasn’t entitled to [NAME] benefits for the time she was outside of Canada. Footnote 19 There is no arguable case this was an error of law. The Applicant wasn’t successful on the issue of availability [ 27 ] The Applicant was outside Canada and therefore not entitled to [NAME] benefits. The General Division also found the Applicant hadn’t proven her availability under [NAME] law. [ 28 ] The General Division explained there are two provisions to consider when determining someone’s availability. A claimant has to show they’re making reasonable and customary efforts to find a suitable job. Footnote 20 Also, section 18(1)(a) of the [NAME] Act says a claimant has to prove that they’re capable of and available for work and unable to obtain suitable employment. Footnote 21 [ 29 ] The General Division reiterated that it had decided the Applicant couldn’t receive [NAME] benefits while she was out of Canada. However, it said that even if it was wrong and the Applicant fell within an exception, she would still need to prove she was actively looking for work. Footnote 22 The General Division looked at both the time the Applicant was out of Canada and the time the Applicant was in Canada. [ 30 ] The General Division reviewed the evidence and decided the Applicant hadn’t shown she made reasonable and customary efforts to find a job. Footnote 23 Additionally, the General Division found the Applicant didn’t make any “real effort” to find a job. Footnote 24 The Applicant is now stating she called a couple of stores. Footnote 25 This wasn’t evidence before the General Division. Footnote 26 The Applicant had an opportunity to testify about what her job search activities were. The General Division asked her about her job search activities. Footnote 27 The Applicant testified she only spoke to [NAME] about working in Canada while she was in Texas. Footnote 28 [ 31 ] In any case, the General Division also found the Applicant had set a personal condition. Footnote 29 The General Division said the Applicant had an arrangement with [NAME] that she would come back to Canada to work every six to eight weeks. The General Division found the Applicant didn’t stick to that arrangement. So, the General Division found that the Applicant unduly limited her chances of working because she only wanted to work for [NAME] and only offered sporadic availability that she didn’t follow. [ 32 ] The Applicant is rearguing saying she was available from August 7, 2025, to September 8, 2025. The General Division dealt with this and explained it didn’t agree. The Applicant testified that she told her employer she would be in Texas for six to eight weeks and then return to Canada for three to four weeks. Footnote 30 But she left Canada on March 18, 2025, and didn’t return until August 7, 2025. This far exceeded the six to eight weeks, she told her employer. Footnote 31 So, it was open to the General Division to decide that the Applicant didn’t stick to her arrangement with her employer. The General Division weighed the evidence and found the Applicant didn’t prove she was available as considered under [NAME] law. [ 33 ] The General Division applied the correct legal tests. The General Division grappled with the evidence. It considered the evidence the Applicant presented. It weighed the evidence and then made findings. I can’t reweigh the evidence, as that isn’t the role of the Appeal Division. There is no arguable case the General Division made an error of law. There is no arguable case the General Division made an important error of fact [ 34 ] An error of fact happens when the General Division makes its decision based on an erroneous (wrong) finding of fact that was “made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it”. Footnote 32 This means the General Division had to ignore, misunderstand or overlook the evidence in some way. [ 35 ] The General Division doesn’t have to mention every piece of evidence. Footnote 33 The law is clear that I can intervene only if 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.” Footnote 34 [ 36 ] The Applicant says the General Division didn’t consider, “other factors like no one likes to pay expenses on both sides like mortgage/utility expenses in Canada and renting in US, it was very hard for us to make decision like this but we had to do this as no choice because my [sic] has issue of myocarditis, hives, post nasal drips and he really feels better here in US warm weather.” Footnote 35 [ 37 ] The Applicant’s husband’s medical condition was considered by the General Division. This was the reason the General Division agreed the Applicant had just cause for leaving her job. The other factors aren’t relevant and weren’t before the General Division. As noted above, the General Division had a specific job to do. It had to consider the law according to the [NAME] Act. It looked at the facts that were relevant to the tests it had to apply. [ 38 ] There is no arguable case the General Division made an important error of fact. The General Division considered the Applicant’s arguments. So, it can’t be said that it overlooked, misunderstood, or ignored the Applicant’s arguments. It seems that the Applicant is attempting to reargue her case to the Appeal Division, with the hope of a different outcome. It isn’t the role of the Appeal Division to reweigh the evidence that was before the General Division. [ 39 ] The Applicant is also rearguing that she contributed to [NAME] and should get benefits because of that. But like all insurance plans, you must meet certain conditions. Footnote 36 The Applicant doesn’t meet all the conditions so she can’t be paid [NAME] benefits. There are no additional errors in the General Division decision [ 40 ] Because the Applicant is self-represented, I reviewed the file, listened to the hearing recording, and looked at the decision the Applicant is appealing. I haven’t found any reviewable error that the General Division may have made. Footnote 37 [ 41 ] The General Division provided the Applicant with a fair process. It applied the correct legal tests. It made the decisions it had to decide. There is no arguable case the General Division made an important error of fact. This means there is no arguable case the General Division made a reviewable error that would allow the Appeal Division to step in. Conclusion [ 42 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See AD1B the Applicant’s response sent on March 23, 2026. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 56(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See section 58(2) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FC  928 at paragraph 13; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FC  498; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  115 at paragraph 12; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2017  FC  259 at paragraph 16. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. The grounds listed are also known as errors. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2021  FCA  222 at paragraph 7; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) 2022  FCA  157 at paragraph 27. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See AD1B-1 of the Applicant’s submission to the Appeal Division. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 Listen to the General Division hearing recording at 00:31:41. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 Listen to the General Division hearing recording at 00:32:01. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 Listen to the General Division hearing recording at 01:05:58. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 Listen to the General Division hearing recording at 01:18:51. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD7 dated February 9, 2026, the Applicant’s husband’s email to the General Division. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See the General Division decision at paragraph 14. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 Listen to the General Division hearing recording at 00:28:08. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 21 to 50. See especially paragraph 50 where the General Division concludes the Applicant had just cause for leaving her job. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See the General Division decision at paragraph 56. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See section 37 of the [NAME] Act and section 55 of the [NAME]. See the General Division decision at paragraph 53. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 53 to 55. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See the General Division decision at paragraph 58. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See section 50(8) of the [NAME]. See the General Division decision at paragraph 60. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See section 18 of the [NAME] Act. See the General Division decision at paragraph 61. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See the General Division decision at paragraph 63. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See the General Division decision at paragraph 69. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See the General Division decision at paragraph 77. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See AD1B-1 the Applicant’s submission to the Appeal Division. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 An appeal, at this level, is not a new hearing based on new evidence. It is a review of the General Division’s decision based only on the evidence it had.  This means I am only considering the evidence that was before the General Division. [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2019  FCA  256 at paragraph 13. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 Listen to the General Division hearing recording at 01:02:58. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 Listen to the General Division hearing recording at 00:48:55. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See the General Division decision at paragraph 82. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 Listen to the General Division hearing recording at 00:44:40; 00:45:07; 01:00:05 to 01:00:50. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 This period of time was over 21 weeks. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 [NAME]  v  Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2012  FC  319 at paragraph 39. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See AD1B-1 the Applicant’s submission to the Appeal Division. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2004  FCA  90 at paragraph 3. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 The Federal Court has said I must do this in decisions like [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  874 and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 37 referrer