Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal EI Misconduct Disqualification

Citation: [NAME] v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  244 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Representative: [NAME]. Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated February 25, 2026 (GE-25-3302) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: March 26, 2026 File number: AD-26-261 On this page Decision Overview Issue I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal the General Division decision is denied. [ 2 ] This means A. A.’s appeal won’t go forward. Footnote 1 Overview [ 3 ] A. A. is the Claimant in this case. He made a claim for EI benefits. [ 4 ] He has now applied for permission to appeal a General Division decision about his EI claim. I will give him permission if he has a reasonable chance of winning his appeal. [ 5 ] The General Division decided the Claimant lost his job as a delivery driver for misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act). Footnote 2 The General Division found his employer had him on progressive discipline plan, with a possibility of termination. Then he got into another accident. So, his employer terminated his employment. Because he lost his job for misconduct, the law disqualified him from getting EI regular benefits. [ 6 ] The Claimant argues the General Division disregarded evidence of his employer’s lack of safety training and equipment provided, and evidence that his employer ignored the environment of the delivery destinations. [ 7 ] This argument doesn’t show an arguable case the General Division made an error. He doesn’t have a reasonable chance of winning his appeal. So, I can’t give him permission to appeal. Issue [ 8 ] Does the Claimant’s appeal have a reasonable chance of success? I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal [ 9 ] Before making my decision, I read the Claimant’s application to appeal. Footnote 3 I read the General Division decision. And I reviewed the documents in the General Division file. Footnote 4 I didn’t listen to the hearing recording. I didn’t need to do that to make an acceptable and defensible decision, given the settled law, the Claimant’s arguments, and the documents in evidence at the General Division. [ 10 ] For the reasons that follow, I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal. The permission to appeal test screens out appeals that have no reasonable chance of success Footnote 5 [ 11 ] The Claimant has applied for permission to appeal. I give permission when there’s an arguable case the General Division made an error that gives a claimant a reasonable chance of winning their appeal. Footnote 6 [ 12 ] The law says I can consider four types of errors—the General Division used an unfair procedure, or made a jurisdictional error, a legal error, or an important factual error. Footnote 7 The Claimant’s appeal doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success No arguable case of a procedural fairness error [ 13 ] The Claimant checked the procedural fairness error box on his application form. Footnote 8 [ 14 ] Procedural fairness describes the General Division’s legal duty to use a fair process when it runs the appeal—not about its decision. None of the Claimant’s reasons are about the process the General Division used before, at, or after the hearing. [ 15 ] The Claimant might be arguing the General Division decision, or the outcome of the appeal disqualifying him from benefits, is unfair to him. But simply disagreeing with the General Division’s findings, or the outcome of the appeal, doesn’t show an arguable case the General Division made an error. Footnote 9 A claimant can’t get benefits just because they made contributions and are in financial need. They have to prove they qualify and are entitled to benefits. The General Division could not ignore the law and base its decision on financial need or fairness. No arguable case the General Division ignored relevant evidence [ 16 ] The Claimant seems to be arguing the General Division made an important factual error. He says he truly believes the General Division totally disregarded his concerns about his employer’s “lack of safety training, equipment provided, and their total ignoring the environment of their delivery destinations.” Footnote 10 [ 17 ] The General Division makes an important factual error when it bases its decision on a factual finding it reached by ignoring relevant evidence. Or its decision goes squarely against relevant evidence. Relevant means evidence that fits the legal test. [ 18 ] The General Division considered the Claimant’s evidence and arguments about his employer’s alleged failures and shortcomings (paragraphs 7, 8, 14, 23, 24). But it didn’t have to. That’s because the courts have clearly and consistently said the law of misconduct is about the employee’s conduct, not their employer’s conduct, training, or policies. Footnote 11 [ 19 ] The Claimant’s evidence about his employer’s failures and shortcomings wasn’t relevant to an issue the General Division had to decide. So, there isn’t an arguable case the General Division ignored relevant evidence. Conclusion [ 20 ] The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error. I reviewed the decision, the applicable law from the EI  Act and court decisions, and the written record. I didn’t find an arguable case of a legal error or an important factual error. [ 21 ] This tells me the Claimant’s appeal doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success. And his appeal can’t go forward. Footnotes Footnote 1 The Appeal Division process has two steps. First, a person applies for permission to appeal a General Division decision. If they don’t get permission, their appeal can’t go forward. Second, if they get permission, they get to argue their case in writing or at a hearing. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See section 30 of the Employment Insurance Act . Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 See AD1. The Claimant’s reasons for appeal set out the key issues and central arguments I have to consider. [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FC  928 at paragraph 13. Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 See GD2, GD2A, GD3, and GD4. Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 See section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD  Act); [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  1282 at paragraph 32. Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  11. Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 See section 58(1) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 See AD1-4. Return to footnote 8 Footnote 9 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  874 at paragraph 20. Return to footnote 9 Footnote 10 See AD1-2. Return to footnote 10 Footnote 11 See for examples [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2007  FCA  36; Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2007  FCA  107; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FCA  7; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2026  FCA  46. Return to footnote 11