Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal EI Benefits Decision

Citation: [NAME]  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  57 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 9, 2025 (GE-25-2958) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 27, 2026 File number: AD-26-22 On this page Decision Overview Issues I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. The appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] The Claimant, J. V., asked for Employment Insurance ( EI ) regular benefits on May 11, 2025. Footnote 1 The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided the Claimant was not entitled to receive benefits because he had voluntarily left his employment on May 30, 2025, without just cause. Footnote 2 [ 3 ] The Claimant asked the Commission to reconsider its decision. Footnote 3 The Commission upheld its decision. Footnote 4 [ 4 ] The Claimant appealed to the General Division. The General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal. It decided he had reasonable alternatives to quitting his employment when he did. So it decided he was disqualified from receiving regular EI benefits Footnote 5 . [ 5 ] The Claimant is now asking the Appeal Division for permission to appeal the General Division’s decision. Permission to appeal is required for an appeal to be heard on the merits. Footnote 6 I am refusing the application for permission to appeal for the following reasons. Issues [ 6 ] I must decide the following issues: a) Is there an arguable case the General Division breached the principles of procedural fairness by preventing the Claimant from explaining why he left his job? b) Is there an arguable case the General Division made an important error of fact by determining that the Claimant would have stayed at his job if he had been given a raise? c) Is there an arguable case the General Division made an error, other than the ones alleged by the Claimant, that would allow me to intervene? I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal The legal test for granting permission to appeal [ 7 ] I can give the Claimant permission to appeal if the appeal has a reasonable chance of success, based on one of the grounds of appeal set out in the law. A reasonable chance of success means having some arguable ground upon which the appeal might succeed. Footnote 7 [ 8 ] So the Claimant must show an arguable case that the General Division did one of the following: breached the principles of procedural fairness acted beyond its powers or refused to exercise its powers made an error in law based its decision on an important error of fact. Footnote 8 [ 9 ] I must refuse the application for permission to appeal if the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. Footnote 9 [ 10 ] I have reviewed the record and the General Division’s decision and listened to the recording of the General Division’s hearing before making my decision. There is no arguable case the General Division breached the principles of procedural fairness by preventing the Claimant from explaining why he left his job [ 11 ] In his application to the Appeal Division, the Claimant wrote that he wasn’t given a fair chance to explain why he left his job. Footnote 10 [ 12 ] The duty to act fairly means that the General Division had to ensure the Claimant’s right to be heard and his right to an impartial hearing. Footnote 11 [ 13 ] The Claimant has not shown an arguable case that the General Division may have prevented him from being heard. The General Division fully reviewed the evidence. In its decision, the General Division enumerated the different statements the Claimant made about why he left his job. The General Division went over all the statements the Claimant made in his Request for Reconsideration. Footnote 12 Then, it went over the statements he made during his reconsideration interview. Footnote 13 After that, the General Division summarized what the Claimant wrote in his appeal to the General Division. Footnote 14 And then the General Division described the Claimant’s testimony at the hearing. Footnote 15 [ 14 ] The General Division also ensured that the Claimant was informed of the case he had to meet. When making her introductory comments, the General Division member invited the Claimant to interrupt her if he had any questions. Footnote 16 She said she wanted to be sure to answer his questions. [ 15 ] The member also pointed the Claimant to the Commission’s arguments. Footnote 17 The member highlighted the relevant applicable sections of the law. She showed the Claimant some of the circumstances that can be considered in determining whether there is just cause for voluntarily leaving a job. Footnote 18 The member invited the Claimant to identify any circumstances listed at section 29(c) of the Employment Insurance Act that he thinks apply to his case. Footnote 19 She also said he could identify other circumstances that aren’t listed. She gave him some time to look them over. [ 16 ] The General Division member also explained the legal test for the Claimant’s benefit. Footnote 20 She told him the hearing was his opportunity to persuade her that he had no other alternative to leave when he did. [ 17 ] In addition, the General Division allowed the Claimant to determine how he would like to give his testimony. The member said she could either ask him questions, or he could start with saying what he would like. The Claimant said he would prefer if the member asked him questions. Footnote 21 So that is what she did. The General Division also allowed the Claimant the opportunity to provide an explanation to why he had made some inconsistent statements. The member asked him for an explanation and allowed him to express himself and give his point of view Footnote 22 . There is no arguable case the General Division made an important error of fact when it determined the Claimant would have stayed at his job had he been given a raise [ 18 ] An important error of fact occurs when the General Division bases its decision on a finding that is wrong, that was made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard to the evidence. Footnote 23 The Appeal Division cannot intervene in a General Division decision simply because it might have weighed the evidence differently. Footnote 24 [ 19 ] In his application to the Appeal Division, the Claimant says that he would have left his job whether he had been given a raise or not. Footnote 25 He said that it isn’t true that he would have stayed even if his employer had given him the raise he asked for. [ 20 ] There is no arguable case the General Division made an important error of fact when it decided the Claimant would have stayed at his job if he had been given a raise. The Claimant made contradictory statements about this subject, and the General Division decided some of his statements were more reliable than others. It was open to the General Division to do so as trier of fact. [ 21 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division’s findings of fact aren’t rationally supported by the evidence in the file. The General Division included in its decision both the Claimant’s statements to the Commission and his testimony at the hearing. The General Division referred to the statements the Claimant made to the Commission during an interview Footnote 26 . The Claimant was asked if he would have stayed if the employer had given him the raise he asked for. The Claimant said that he would have done the extra work if he would have gotten the raise he asked for. Footnote 27 He also stated that he gave his two weeks notice because he figured that he didn’t want to do the work anymore without more money. Footnote 28 The General Division also noted that the Claimant had testified at the hearing that he would not have stayed at his job even if he had gotten a raise Footnote 29 . [ 22 ] The General Division explained why it relied more heavily on what he had told the Commission before the hearing. It explained that the Claimant had made these statements spontaneously. Footnote 30 The General Division also said these statements were consistent with what the Claimant wrote in his Request for Reconsideration. Namely, the Claimant had said he wanted his value to be recognised and to make all the work worthwhile. Footnote 31 I reviewed the Claimant’s Request for Reconsideration. He wrote that he had organised a meeting with management in which he voiced his frustration. He thought maybe his value could be recognized, and he tried to negotiate a fair wage to make all the work worthwhile. He said that “however, no consideration was made, and [he] truly felt underappreciated for all [his] efforts.” Footnote 32 [ 23 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division made a finding that was squarely contradicted by the evidence in this case. Rather, the General Division believed the Claimant’s statements to the Commission more than it believed what he said at the hearing. The General Division is allowed to make such a finding. I cannot reweigh the evidence or intervene on a credibility finding in the absence of a factual finding that was made in an abusive or arbitrary manner. [ 24 ] It is the General Division’s role to look at the evidence and determine if it finds some pieces of evidence more convincing than others. The General Division provided reasons for why it preferred some statements the Claimant made before the hearing to the ones he made at the hearing. [ 25 ] It is not my role to reweigh the evidence. The Claimant would like me to give more weight to what he told the General Division at the hearing. But I cannot intervene in how the General Division weighed the evidence. There is no arguable case the General Division made an error, other than the ones alleged by the Claimant, that could give the appeal a reasonable chance of success [ 26 ] Because the Claimant is self-represented, I reviewed the file to determine whether there are any potential errors that could give the Claimant’s appeal a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 33 [ 27 ] I have not found an arguable case that the General Division made an error in law. The determination of what constitutes “just cause” is a question of law. The General Division went through the required steps to determine whether the Claimant was disqualified because he left his job voluntarily without just cause. First, it looked at whether the Claimant had voluntarily left his job. Footnote 34 It decided he had, and he did not contest this. Then, the General Division looked at whether the Claimant had just cause for leaving his job voluntarily. Footnote 35 The General Division explained what just cause means. It means the Claimant had to have had no reasonable alternative to quitting his job when he did. Footnote 36 The General Division also explained that it would look at all the circumstances which existed at the time the Claimant quit his job. The General Division relied on case law and the Employment Insurance Act to explain the legal test. Footnote 37 There is therefore no arguable case the General Division could have made an error in law. [ 28 ] There is no arguable case either that the General Division decided something beyond its powers or failed to decide something it had the power to decide. The Commission’s reconsideration decision determined that the Claimant had left his job voluntarily without just cause. The General Division therefore had to look at the same issue. That is what the General Division did. Conclusion [ 29 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the Claimant’s application à GD3-11. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See the Notice of Decision at GD3-19. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See the Request for Reconsideration at GD3-21. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See the Notice of Decision at GD3-29. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-23 at paragraph 91. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 56(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  115 at paragraph 12. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See the Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division at AD1-3. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [NAME] (Re) , 2001  SCC  35 (CanLII), [2001] 2 SCR 3 at paragraph 82. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-5 to AD1A-7. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-7 to AD1A-8. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-9 at paragraph 29. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-9 to AD1A-13. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 Listen to the recording of the General Division hearing at 00:02:30. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 Listen to the recording of the General Division hearing at 00:04:50 Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 Listen to the recording of the General Division hearing at 00:06:20. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 Listen to the recording of the General Division hearing at 00:16:00 Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 Listen to the recording of the General Division hearing at 00:09:15. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 Listen to the recording of the General Division hearing at 00:13:45. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 Listen to the recording of the General Division hearing at 01:02:39. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See section 58(1)(c) of the Department of Employment and Social Development . Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 [NAME]   v   Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  157 at paragraph 27. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See the Claimant’s Application to the Appeal Division at AD1-3. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-18 at paragraph 55. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See the Service Canada interview notes at GD3-27. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See the Service Canada interview notes at GD3-27. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-20 at paragraph 69. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-18 at paragraph 55. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-18 at paragraph 55. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See the Claimant’s Request for Reconsideration at GD3-24. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See the [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  615 at paragraph 10. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-3 at paragraphs 12 to 17. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-4 at paragraphs 19 to 90. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-4 at paragraph 21. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See the General Division’s decision at AD1A-5 at paragraph 23. The General Division referred to Canada (Attorney General)   v   [NAME] , 2011  FCA  190 at paragraph 3 and section 29(c) of the Employment Insurance Act . Return to footnote 37 referrer