Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal Employment Insurance Benefit Denial

Citation: SH  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  [NAME]  80 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 2, 2025 (GE-25-2784) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: February 6, 2026 File number: AD-25-832 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matters Issue Analysis I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. [NAME].’s appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] [NAME]. is the Claimant, and he worked in maintenance at a hospital until the end of March 2025. The hospital was building a new facility which opened in April 2025. A few months after he stopped working, he applied for Employment Insurance regular benefits in June 2025. [ 3 ] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission decided that the Claimant had voluntarily left his job without just cause, so he wasn’t entitled to get benefits. Footnote 1 It said there were reasonable alternatives. [ 4 ] The General Division concluded the same and dismissed his appeal. Footnote 2 The Claimant is now asking for permission to appeal. Footnote 3 [ 5 ] 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 4 Preliminary matters The General Division’s decision in file GE-25-2784 (voluntary leave) [ 6 ] The Claimant filed two appeals to the General Division. It heard both files together but issued two separate decisions because the legal issues were different. Footnote 5 [ 7 ] The Claimant is now appealing both decisions made by the General Division to the Appeal Division. Similarly, I am issuing two separate decisions for each file. Footnote 6 [ 8 ] This decision only involves file GE-25-2784 where the General Division decided the voluntary leave issue. I mailed a letter to the Claimant asking for additional information and he replied [ 9 ] I reviewed the Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division, and I noticed that it was incomplete because he didn’t identify any reasons for making his appeal, or the types of errors he thinks the General Division made. [ 10 ] So, I sent the Claimant a letter asking him for more information and explaining with examples the types of errors I could consider. Footnote 7 Since we communicate with the Claimant by mail, I gave him extra time to respond. [ 11 ] The Claimant responded to my letter by sending three separate replies. Footnote 8 One of his responses arrived a day after the deadline. I accepted the late reply because it was relevant to his application to the Appeal Division, it wasn’t new, it wouldn’t cause any delays, and it wasn’t unfair to the Commission. Footnote 9 I also considered that it was only a short delay likely due to mailing (1 day after the deadline). [ 12 ] As of today’s date, the Tribunal hasn’t received anything further from the Claimant. Issue [ 13 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made any important factual or legal errors when it decided that the Claimant voluntarily left his job without just cause? Analysis [ 14 ] 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 10 These errors are based on the grounds of appeal. [ 15 ] 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 11 [ 16 ] I’ve looked at the General Division decision, the Claimant’s application to Appeal Division, the documents he sent to the Tribunal, and all of the file documents before making my decision. I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal There is no arguable case that the General Division made any important factual errors or legal errors [ 17 ] When I asked the Claimant to explain with reasons why he was appealing the voluntary leave decision, he wrote back saying that “two appeals have to be done.” Footnote 12 As noted above, the Appeal Division has created two separate appeal files. [ 18 ] He also explained that the facts weren’t understood because the infrastructure support was not at the new hospital, so the work had to be done by other individuals. Footnote 13 As well, he says that some information is totally incorrect. Footnote 14 [ 19 ] The Claimant hasn’t identified the type of errors he thinks the General Division made. Footnote 15 But I think he might be arguing that the General Division made important factual errors so I will start with that. And after that, I will consider whether there is an arguable case that it made any legal errors. [ 20 ] The General Division makes an important factual error when it reaches its decision by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. Footnote 16 [ 21 ] The  Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act) says a person is not entitled to get benefits if they voluntarily leave their employment without just cause. Footnote 17 This results in a “disqualification” to benefits. Footnote 18 [ 22 ] A person has just cause for voluntarily leaving their job if, having regard to all the circumstances, they had no reasonable alternative to quitting. The law provides a list of circumstances. Footnote 19 [ 23 ] To show just cause, the Claimant has to show that, having regard to all the circumstances, on a balance of probabilities, he had no reasonable alternative to leaving his job. [ 24 ] The General Division in this case decided that the Claimant voluntarily left his job. It found that he had a choice to stay or leave his job when he did. Footnote 20 [ 25 ] The Claimant testified before the General Division that he didn’t receive a layoff letter or termination letter from his employer, but that he submitted a letter to his employer indicating that he was going to take his pension because he was not permitted to work at the new facility. Footnote 21 [ 26 ] The General Division acknowledged that employees in the same classification and areas of work couldn’t work in the new facility, but it found there was no evidence to suggest that his job in the existing hospital had ended. Footnote 22 It considered that [NAME] told the Commission that his job was not contracted out and it was trying to fill the position. Footnote 23 The Record of Employment in the file also shows that the reason for its issuance was because he quit/voluntarily retired. Footnote 24 [ 27 ] Following its finding that he voluntarily left his job, the General Division then considered his particular circumstances. It was aware that he worked at a hospital and a new facility was being built. The Claimant told the General Division they were starting to move patients from the hospital into the new facility and that he didn’t want to work at the existing hospital without any patients. Footnote 25 [ 28 ] The General Division concluded that he didn’t have just cause to leave his job when he did. It found that there were reasonable alternatives including, continuing to work in his existing hospital job, or secure a new job before leaving his job. Footnote 26 [ 29 ] I see no arguable case that the General Division made any important factual errors. Footnote 27 Its key findings on the voluntary leave issue are consistent with the evidence. And I didn’t find any evidence that the General Division might have ignored or misinterpreted. Footnote 28 [ 30 ] The General Division is the trier of fact and was free to weigh the evidence and conclude that he voluntarily left his job, that he didn’t have just cause and there were reasonable alternatives. And it didn’t ignore his circumstances, it understood that a new facility had been built, but it found that he still had a job at the existing facility. This is consistent with the evidence before it. [ 31 ] The Appeal Division’s mandate is limited to determining whether the General Division made a reviewable error. Footnote 29 The Claimant may not agree with the General Division’s decision, but a disagreement with the outcome isn’t a reviewable error. [ 32 ] I’ve also reviewed whether there was an arguable case that the General Division made any legal errors. [ 33 ] The General Division makes a legal error when it misinterprets a law or doesn’t follow a court decision it had to follow. [ 34 ] The General Division’s decision shows that it correctly stated the law and relevant case law in its decision. Footnote 30 And it correctly stated that it had no authority to interpret the “letter of intent” or any provision of his collective agreement, but rather that it had to focus on the legal issue before it (voluntary leave). Footnote 31 That’s exactly what it did. [ 35 ] I see no arguable case that it made any legal errors either. Footnote 32 And there are no other reasons for giving the Claimant permission to appeal. Conclusion [ 36 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. It has no reasonable chance of success. Footnotes Footnote 1 See Commission’s initial and reconsideration decision at pages GD3-20 to GD3-21 and GD3-35. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See General Division decision at pages AD1A-1 to AD1A-8. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See Application to the Appeal Division at pages AD1-1 to AD1-6. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See paragraphs 9–12 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 The other Appeal Division file number is AD-25-831. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See Tribunal letter dated January 7, 2026. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See pages AD1B-1 to AD1B-25, AD1C-1 to AD1C-2 and AD1-1 to AD1D-2. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 The deadline to reply was January 26, 2026. The Tribunal received the Claimant’s reply on January 27, 2026 (see pages AD1D-1 to AD1D-2). Also see, sections 19(2) and 42 of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure ( [NAME]). Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [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 11 referrer Footnote 12 See pages AD1B-1 and AD1D-1. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See pages AD1B-1 and AD1C-1. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See page AD1C-1. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See page AD1-2. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 This is a plain language wording of section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act, which says this happens when the General Division has “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.” Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See section 29(c) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See section 30(1) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See section 29(c) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See paragraph 22 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See paragraph 19 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See paragraph 22 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See paragraphs 17–23 of the General Division decision and page GD3-33. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See Record of Employment at pages GD3-16. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See paragraph 31 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See paragraph 41 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 The Federal Court has suggested such a review in decisions like  [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2016  FC  874 and  [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General),  2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See section 58(2) of the  DESD  Act;  [NAME]   v   Canada (Attorney General),  2016  FC  1367 and [NAME]   v   Canada (Attorney General),  2017  FC  354. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See paragraphs 18, 25-29, 33 and 36 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See paragraphs 30–33 and 40 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See section 58(1)(b) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 32 referrer