Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal Employment Insurance Decision

Citation: CS  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  151 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated January 15, 2026 (GE-25-3527) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: March 4, 2026 File number: AD-26-99 On this page Decision Overview Issue Preliminary matter Analysis I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. C. S.’s appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] C. S. is the Claimant. He applied for Employment Insurance benefits. [ 3 ] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that the Claimant had voluntarily left his job without just cause. It found there were reasonable alternatives, so he was disqualified from getting benefits. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] The General Division concluded the same and dismissed his appeal. Footnote 2 [ 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 3 Issue [ 6 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made any legal errors or important factual errors when it decided the voluntary leave issue? Preliminary matter I am not accepting the Claimant’s new evidence [ 7 ] As part of the Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division, he submitted a fact sheet from The Worker Advisers Office of British Columbia. The fact sheet is called the “Occupational Health and Safety: Know your rights and responsibilities” and he highlighted specific areas about his employee rights that he found relevant for his case. Footnote 4 [ 8 ] The Appeal Division generally doesn’t accept new evidence. Footnote 5 This is because the Appeal Division isn’t the fact finder or rehearing the case. It’s a review of the General Division’s decision based on the same evidence. Footnote 6 [ 9 ] There are some exceptions where new evidence is allowed. For example, I can accept new evidence if it provides one of the following: general background information only, if it highlights findings made without supporting evidence, or shows that the Tribunal acted unfairly. Footnote 7 [ 10 ] I find that the fact sheet the Claimant submitted is new evidence that was not before the General Division. I reviewed the General Division file and none of this evidence is in the record or in the audio recording of the General Division hearing. This evidence wasn’t before the General Division when it made its decision. [ 11 ] An appeal to the Appeal Division isn’t a “redo” based on updated evidence of the hearings before the General Division. Instead, they are reviews of the General Division based on the  same evidence . [ 12 ] I’m not accepting the new evidence because it isn’t general background information and doesn’t meet any of the other exceptions either. This means I can’t consider the Claimant’s new evidence when making my decision. Analysis [ 13 ] I can consider four types of errors, and they include a failure to follow a fair process, jurisdictional, legal, and important factual errors. Footnote 8 [ 14 ] 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 9 [ 15 ] The Claimant set out his reasons for appealing and I have considered them. Footnote 10 I’ve also reviewed the General Division decision, the file documents and listened to the audio recording before making my decision. I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal The Claimant’s arguments to the Appeal Division [ 16 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division made legal errors and important factual errors for the following reasons: Footnote 11 there were unsafe conditions at work with his work truck and ladder there was also a hostile environment with the office manager who was harassing him he wasn’t able to go to the work site because the employer didn’t resolve his concerns he wasn’t expected to be present for the shifts scheduled on Tuesday and Wednesday there was a breach of contract related to occupational health and safety standards at work he mentioned a list of concerns over the 13 months of his employment, so it was unreasonable to expect him to go to work in unsafe conditions. The General Division decided that the Claimant voluntarily left his job and didn’t have just cause [ 17 ] The law says that a person has just cause for voluntarily leaving their job if, having regard to all the circumstances, they had no reasonable alternative to quitting. There is a list of circumstances to consider. Footnote 12 [ 18 ] The General Division in this case found that the Claimant made a personal choice to not go to work and had initiated the separation from his employment. It decided that he had voluntarily left his job on May 12, 2025. Footnote 13 [ 19 ] The General Division considered the Claimant’s reasons for not going to work. Footnote 14 It accepted that there were unsafe working conditions throughout the Claimant’s employment. It noted that he continued to report to work throughout his employment despite the employer failing to address those concerns. But it found that the working conditions hadn’t worsened or become intolerable immediately prior to his job abandonment. Footnote 15 [ 20 ] The General Division found that the employer had previously held meetings with the Claimant to address other concerns he had with the office manager. And it found the meetings had been scheduled in a timely manner. Footnote 16 It also found that the employer tried to have a meeting with him on May 9, 2025, but the Claimant declined because of a long shift that day and the expectation of advance notice. Footnote 17 [ 21 ] The General Division gave weight to the fact that the Claimant had raised his dissatisfaction with his pay three times in the month before leaving his job. It found that it was more likely than not, that he left his job because he was dissatisfied with his pay and pay raise. Footnote 18 It cited case law that says a person’s dissatisfaction with an inability to get a raise, doesn’t amount to just cause. Footnote 19 [ 22 ] The General Division concluded that he voluntarily left his job and didn’t have just cause. It decided that there was a reasonable alternative to leaving his job such as continuing to attend work. Especially since there was going to be a scheduled meeting with his employer to address his grievances. Footnote 20 There is no arguable case that the General Division made any legal errors or based its decision on any important factual errors [ 23 ] A legal error happens when the General Division doesn’t apply the correct law or when it uses the correct law but misunderstands what it means or how to apply it. [ 24 ] A factual error happens when the General Division has “based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.” Footnote 21 Put another way, the General Division makes an important factual error when it reaches its decision by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. [ 25 ] The General Division is the trier of fact and is entitled to weigh the evidence. In this case, it considered the Claimant’s reasons but found he didn’t have just cause to leave his job. It explained with detailed reasons why it made the findings it did. [ 26 ] The Claimant argues that the employer breached the employment contract, but this Tribunal isn’t the forum for addressing that issue. There are other forums to do this. [ 27 ] The Claimant appears to be rearguing his case because he isn’t satisfied with the outcome, but that isn’t enough for me to intervene. The Appeal Division has a limited mandate, and I can’t reweigh the evidence in order to get a different conclusion for the Claimant. Footnote 22 [ 28 ] There is no arguable case that the General Division made any legal errors. The General Division correctly stated the law in its decision. It also referred to and relied on relevant case law. Footnote 23 [ 29 ] And there is no arguable case that the General Division based its decision on an important factual error either. Its key findings on the voluntary leave issue were consistent with the evidence. [ 30 ] I reviewed the documents in the file, listened to the audio recording and examined the decision under appeal, and I’m satisfied that the General Division didn’t misinterpret or fail to consider any relevant evidence. Footnote 24 There are no other reasons for giving the Claimant permission to appeal. Conclusion [ 31 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See Commission’s initial and reconsideration decision at pages GD3-46 to G3-47 and GD3-55 and section 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See General Division decision at pages AD1A-1 to AD1A-10. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( [NAME]). Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See pages AD1-10 to AD1-12. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General),  2015  FC  1300 at paragraphs 29 and 34 and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General),  2017  FC  354 at paragraph 23. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General),  2019  FCA  256 at paragraph 13. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v   Canada (Attorney General),  2018  FCA  48 and  [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2022  FCA  157 at paragraphs 37–39. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 58(1) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2016  FC  11 at paragraph 12 and sections 56(1) and 58(2) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See pages AD1-1 to AD1-3 and AD1-5. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 This is a summary of the Claimant’s main arguments set out at pages AD1-2 to AD1-3 and AD1-5. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See section 29(c) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See paragraphs 28 and 32 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See paragraphs 12, 38–41 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See paragraph 38 of the General Division decision. Also see section 29(c)(iv) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See paragraphs 14 and 40 of the General Division decision. Also see section 29(c)(i) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See paragraph 40 of the General Division decision. Listen to the audio recording of the General Division at 40:00 to 41:49. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See paragraph 39 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , A-50-94. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See paragraph 42 of the General Division decision. Also see Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2007  FCA  320 at paragraph 5 says a reasonable alternative is to working conditions with the employer. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See section 58(1)(c) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General),  2018  FCA  118 at paragraph 11. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See paragraphs 10 and 33–37 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  165 at paragraph 10, which recommends doing such a review. Return to footnote 24 referrer