Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal Employment Insurance Case

Citation: [NAME]  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  [NAME]  239 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated February 26, 2026 (GE-26-387) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: March 25, 2026 File number: AD-26-239 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. O. O.’s appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] O. O. is the Claimant. He started working and quit a few days later. He provided reasons for quitting his job. [ 3 ] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that the Claimant voluntarily left his job without just cause. It found there were reasonable alternatives, so he was disqualified from getting Employment Insurance benefits. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] The General Division concluded the same dismissed his appeal. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The Claimant is now asking for permission to appeal and argues that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process, made a jurisdictional and legal error. Footnote 3 [ 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. Issue [ 7 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process, made a jurisdictional error, legal error and important factual error when it decided the voluntary leave issue? 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 4 [ 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 5 [ 10 ] The Claimant identified in his application forms that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process, made jurisdictional and a legal error. Footnote 6 But when I look at his written arguments, they also overlap with another ground of appeal: factual errors. Footnote 7 So, I’ll also consider whether there’s an arguable case that the General Division made any important factual errors. [ 11 ] I’ve looked at the General Division’s 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 [ 12 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division erred when it concluded he had no reasonable alternatives without properly considering whether continuing in a workplace with no tools, no structure, and no confirmed role was objectively reasonable. [ 13 ] He also says that the General Division ignored relevant and material evidence because he wasn’t paid for the work he performed at this company. He says this evidence supports that the employment relationship was dysfunctional and unreliable. Footnote 8 There is no arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process [ 14 ] Procedural fairness is about the fairness of the process. The Claimant has a right to be heard and to know the case against him. He also has a right to be given an opportunity to respond and have his case considered fully and fairly by an impartial decision-maker. [ 15 ] In its decision, the General Division noted that the Claimant had submitted an email, on a Sunday, prior to the hearing. Footnote 9 In that email, the Claimant disputed some of the Commission’s telephone notes that were in the file record. [ 16 ] The General Division wrote that “the document should have been submitted earlier by the Appellant.” Footnote 10 It accepted his email because it said the Claimant had explained its contents and it could ask him questions about it. [ 17 ] Hearings before the General Division are “denovo,” which means it is a fresh hearing of all the evidence. This means that any party can submit evidence or arguments before the hearing, or even at the hearing. There are no rules that say evidence or written arguments have to be submitted before the General Division hearing takes place. Footnote 11 [ 18 ] The General Division made a mistake when it said that the Claimant’s email (i.e., argument) had to be “submitted earlier.” But that mistake didn’t affect the outcome because the General Division accepted and considered his email. So, this mistake doesn’t give his appeal a reasonable chance of success. [ 19 ] I see no arguable case that the General Division didn’t follow a fair process. Footnote 12 The hearing was held by videoconference, the Claimant attended and got a full and fair opportunity to present his case. He also understood the case he had to meet. There is no arguable case that the General Division made any jurisdictional or legal errors [ 20 ] A jurisdictional error means that the General Division didn’t decide an issue it had to decide or decided an issue it didn’t have the authority to decide. [ 21 ] The General Division’s jurisdiction to decide an issue comes from a reconsideration decision that has been appealed to the Tribunal. Footnote 13 [ 22 ] On February 4, 2026, the Commission decided that the Claimant had voluntarily left his job without just cause. Footnote 14 That was the reconsideration decision the Claimant appealed to the Tribunal. Footnote 15 [ 23 ] The General Division has no authority to order the Claimant’s former employer to pay him any outstanding wages. There may be other forums where the Claimant can pursue that claim against his former employer. [ 24 ] I see no arguable case that the General Division made a jurisdictional error. Footnote 16 The General Division only decided the issues it had the authority to decide (voluntary leave) and didn’t decide any other issues that it had no authority to decide such as unpaid wages. [ 25 ] 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. [ 26 ] 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 [ 27 ] To show just cause, the Claimant had to show that, having regard to all the circumstances, on a balance of probabilities, he had no reasonable alternative to leaving his job. The law provides a list of circumstances to consider. Footnote 18 [ 28 ] The Claimant hasn’t pointed out how the General Division made a legal error. [ 29 ] I also see no arguable case that the General Division made any legal errors. Footnote 19 It correctly stated the law and relied on relevant case law in its decision. Footnote 20 There is no arguable case that the General Division based its decision on any important factual errors [ 30 ] The General Division makes an important factual error when it reaches its decision by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. Footnote 21 [ 31 ] The General Division’s key findings on the voluntary leave issue included the following: He started work on November 3, 2025, and voluntarily left his job on November 5, 2025 Footnote 22 A list of circumstances that existed when he left his job Footnote 23 He didn’t have just cause for leaving his job when he did because there were reasonable alternatives including continuing to work until he found another job, or until the owner returned on November 20, 2025. Footnote 24 [ 32 ] The General Division addressed the Claimant’s specific circumstances. It found that the Claimant was able to use another person’s workstation and computer while the employer was upgrading their system over the next 10–12 days. Footnote 25 It also found that he was using a general email address but would eventually get a personalized email address once another staff member was back at work (that person was off sick that particular week). Footnote 26 [ 33 ] The General Division found that the Claimant was trying to renegotiate the terms and conditions of his employment with the owner of the company. Footnote 27 But the owner was away until November 20, 2025. Footnote 28 The Claimant wanted a particular mileage rate for using his own car, to work remotely and different hours. Footnote 29 [ 34 ] I see no arguable case that the General Division based its decision on any important factual errors. Footnote 30 Its key findings are consistent with the evidence. It didn’t ignore or overlook any relevant evidence about his circumstances at work. It also explained with reasons why it made the decision it did. [ 35 ] The General Division is the trier of fact. It was free to weigh the evidence and conclude that he didn’t have just cause based on the evidence. The evidence shows that the Claimant had two reasonable alternatives to leaving his job: he could have continued to work until he found another job, or until the owner returned on November 20, 2025. Indeed, the Claimant acknowledged that if he had known leaving his job would have affected his benefits, he wouldn’t have made that decision. Footnote 31 [ 36 ] The Appeal Division’s mandate is limited to determining whether the General Division made a reviewable error. Footnote 32 The Claimant may not agree with the General Division’s decision, but a disagreement with the outcome isn’t a reviewable error. [ 37 ] There are no other reasons for giving the Claimant permission to appeal. I didn’t find any evidence that the General Division might have ignored or misinterpreted. Footnote 33 Conclusion [ 38 ] 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 GD3-19 to GD3-20 and GD3-38. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See General Division decision at pages AD1A-1 to AD1A-7. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See Application to the Appeal Division at pages AD1-1 to AD1-17. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 58(1) of the  Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [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 5 referrer Footnote 6 See page AD1-6. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See pages AD1-1 and AD1-6. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See pages AD1-1 to AD1-7. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See paragraphs 8–10 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See paragraph 10 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 There is another rule that deals with the handling of late evidence or written arguments after a filing deadline is set by the Tribunal, see section 42 of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure. That rule doesn’t apply in this case because there was no deadline set by the General Division, so the Claimant didn’t need permission to submit his argument before the hearing. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See section 58(1)(a) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See section 113 of the  Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act). Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See page GD3-38. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See pages GD2-1 to GD2-25. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See section 58(1)(a) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See section 30(1) of the  EI  Act. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See section 29(c) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See section 58(1)(b) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See paragraphs 23–25 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 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 21 referrer Footnote 22 See paragraphs 3 and 21 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See paragraph 27 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See paragraphs 29 and 36 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See paragraph 31 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See paragraph 32 of the General Division decision and pages GD3-34 to GD3-35. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See paragraph 35 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See paragraph 29 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See page GD3-17. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See paragraph 38 of the General Division decision and page GD2-16. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 [NAME]   v   Canada (Attorney General),  2016  FC  1367 and  [NAME]   v   Canada (Attorney General), 2017  FC  354. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 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 33 referrer