Claimant Loses Appeal Over Voluntary Resignation and Pension Benefits

OUTCOME: Dismissed

[TRANSLATION] Citation: LR  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  335 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: [COUNSEL] (counsel), [NAME] [[NAME]] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [COUNSEL] under appeal: General Division decision dated February 23, 2026 (GE-26-66) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: May 22, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative Respondent’s representative Decision date: June 16, 2026 File number: AD-26-184 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The General Division didn’t make an error that would allow the Appeal Division to intervene. Overview [ 3 ] The [APPELLANT], [NAME]., applied for Employment Insurance ( EI ) regular benefits. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that the [APPELLANT] wasn’t entitled to benefits because she voluntarily left her job on June 30, 2025, without good cause. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The [APPELLANT] asked the Commission to reconsider its decision. Footnote 3 She said that she was forced to quit to retire. But she says that she wanted to continue working. [ 6 ] The Commission upheld its decision. It decided that the [APPELLANT] had voluntarily left her job and that she had reasonable alternatives to leaving. Footnote 4 [ 7 ] The [APPELLANT] appealed this decision to the General Division. The General Division dismissed the appeal. Footnote 5 It decided that the [APPELLANT] hadn’t shown just cause for leaving her job. As a result, the [APPELLANT] was disqualified from receiving EI  benefits. [ 8 ] The [APPELLANT] asked for permission to appeal. The Appeal Division granted permission to appeal. [ 9 ] Before the Appeal Division, the Claimant argues that the General Division based its decision on an important error of fact. Footnote 6 She says that the General Division made an error when it decided that she wanted [NAME] ([NAME]) benefits, instead of Government and Public Employees Retirement Plan (RREGOP) benefits. [ 10 ] At the Appeal Division hearing, the [APPELLANT] lawyer confirmed that he was no longer raising the issue of whether section 33 of the Employment Insurance Act ( EI  Act) applied. This potential error of law was raised in the application for permission to appeal. So, this issue isn’t in dispute. [ 11 ] The Commission, on the other hand, argues that the General Division didn’t make an error that would allow the Appeal Division to intervene. Footnote 7 Issues [ 12 ] The issues are as follows: Did the General Division base its decision on an important error of fact when it found that the [APPELLANT] left her job to get her [NAME] pension and not her employer’s pension? If so, what is the appropriate remedy? Analysis [ 13 ] The Appeal Division can intervene in the General Division’s decision only if it made one of the following errors: breached procedural fairness went beyond or refused to use its jurisdiction made an error of law based its decision on an important error of fact Footnote 8 [ 14 ] The Claimant says that the General Division made an important error of fact. [ 15 ] An important error of fact happens when the General Division bases 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. Footnote 9 [ 16 ] If the General Division makes a finding of fact that contradicts or is unsupported by the evidence, then the Appeal Division can intervene. Footnote 10 [ 17 ] The Appeal Division can’t intervene just because it would have weighed the evidence differently. Footnote 11 The General Division didn’t make an important error of fact The General Division decided that the [APPELLANT] quit her job to get her [NAME] pension [ 18 ] The General Division made a finding of fact about the [APPELLANT] retirement pension based on her evidence. [ 19 ] In paragraph 19 of its decision, the General Division wrote that [translation] “the [APPELLANT] wanted to get her [NAME] pension and not her employer’s.” Footnote 12 [ 20 ] The General Division also wrote that the [APPELLANT] wanted to [translation] “get her government retirement pension.” Footnote 13 And that her employer told her she had to quit to get her retirement pension. The [APPELLANT] testified that she didn’t want her employer’s retirement pension [ 21 ] The General Division weighed the evidence and made a finding of fact based on that evidence. [ 22 ] The General Division relied on the [APPELLANT] testimony to decide that she wanted her [NAME] pension and not her employer’s (RREGOP). [ 23 ] At the General Division hearing, the member asked the Claimant if she wanted to get the retirement pension from her employer. The [APPELLANT] answered “no.” Footnote 14 The [APPELLANT] added that she wanted the “ [NAME] ” pension. Footnote 15 So, the [APPELLANT] testimony was that she did not want the RREGOP pension (the employer’s pension). This supports the General Division’s finding. [ 24 ] The Claimant acknowledges that her testimony before the General Division wasn’t entirely clear. Footnote 16 [ 25 ] So, the [APPELLANT] can’t now argue that a finding of fact based on her own testimony would be perverse or capricious. [ 26 ] The [APPELLANT] says that the General Division should have understood from the “clues” scattered throughout the file that she wanted her RREGOP retirement benefits. Footnote 17 [ 27 ] But, and the Commission correctly points this out, the RREGOP was never discussed before the General Division. There was no suggestion from the representative or the [COUNSEL] that she wanted the RREGOP pension. [ 28 ] The General Division noted that the [APPELLANT] employer told her she had to submit her resignation letter for it to authorize her request for a [NAME] pension. Footnote 18 The General Division referred to the emails between the [COUNSEL] and a representative of the employer. Footnote 19 These emails never mention the RREGOP. [ 29 ] It was only at the Appeal Division stage that the RREGOP pension was raised. [ 30 ] But I can’t consider evidence that wasn’t before the General Division. Footnote 20 [ 31 ] There is also other evidence on file, as well as the hearing testimony, that supports the General Division’s finding that the [APPELLANT] was applying for [NAME] benefits. [ 32 ] In a call with Service Canada, the [APPELLANT] said that she quit so she could get her [NAME] pension. Footnote 21 [ 33 ] Other evidence refers to retirement, without specifying which plan. [ 34 ] In her request for reconsideration, the Claimant wrote that she completed paperwork to retire but wanted to continue working during the next school year. Footnote 22 She was no more specific than that. [ 35 ] A representative from the [COMPANY], the Claimant’s employer, said that the [APPELLANT] retired, but wanted to continue working. Footnote 23 The representative didn’t specify which retirement plan it was. [ 36 ] In her resignation letter, the [APPELLANT] wrote that she was retiring, without explicitly referring to a particular plan. Footnote 24 [ 37 ] It is true that, in a call with a Service Canada agent, where the [NAME] was also present, the [COUNSEL] said that she didn’t know what the [NAME] was. Footnote 25 She then said that she hadn’t quit to get the [NAME]. I note that the [APPELLANT] didn’t say that she quit her job to get the RREGOP on that call either. [ 38 ] The [APPELLANT] statement in this appeal as part of her request for reconsideration contradicts her statements in a previous appeal and the testimony given at the General Division hearing. Footnote 26 [ 39 ] So, it was possible for the General Division to prefer her testimony at the hearing and her previous statement that she wanted the [NAME] pension. [ 40 ] I note the [APPELLANT] confusion about the various pension plans. She doesn’t seem to have known exactly what pension she wanted. In a phone call with Service Canada, she asked whether she could get her old age pension. The agent explained to her that she had to go to [NAME] for this. Footnote 27 [ 41 ] It is understandable that the Claimant is confused about the different pensions that people can access at retirement age. [ 42 ] But the General Division did take the trouble to clarify this point at the hearing. [ 43 ] The General Division asked the question at the hearing precisely to understand what pension the [APPELLANT] wanted. The General Division asked which pension plan she wanted. The [APPELLANT] said that it wasn’t her employer’s plan. So, that left the [NAME] as a plan administered by [NAME] . [ 44 ] I can’t fault the General Division for making a finding of fact based on the Claimant’s own testimony. [ 45 ] The [APPELLANT] can’t give uncontradicted sworn testimony and then criticize the General Division for making findings based on that testimony. [ 46 ] So, the General Division made a finding of fact that was supported by the evidence that the Claimant wanted a [NAME] pension. [ 47 ] In the absence of an important error of fact, I can’t intervene. I can’t intervene on a question of mixed fact and law [ 48 ] The [APPELLANT] says that she had just cause for voluntarily leaving her job. She says that her employer told her she had to quit to get a retirement pension. So, the [APPELLANT] says that she had no reasonable alternative to voluntarily leaving her job in the circumstances so she could access her retirement pension. [ 49 ] The General Division decided that the [APPELLANT] quitting to retire and get a pension wasn’t good cause for voluntarily leaving her job. Footnote 28 [ 50 ] The General Division said that she had reasonable alternatives, like staying in her job. Footnote 29 It decided that the choice to leave was a personal decision. [ 51 ] The [APPELLANT] doesn’t argue that the General Division applied the wrong legal test. Instead, she says that the Appeal Division should come to a different conclusion than the General Division did. Namely, that leaving her job to get a retirement pension amounts to good cause under section 29(c) of the EI  Act. [ 52 ] Applying established principles to the facts is a question of mixed fact and law. Footnote 30 The Appeal Division doesn’t have jurisdiction to decide questions of mixed fact and law. Footnote 31 [ 53 ] It isn’t the Appeal Division’s role to reapply the legal test to the facts of the case to come to a different conclusion than the General Division did. Final remarks [ 54 ] I want to acknowledge the [APPELLANT] contribution to the [NAME]. She seems to be a [NAME]. I don’t question her good faith. [ 55 ] But, in the absence of an error based on one of the grounds of appeal set out in the Department of Employment and Social Development Act , I can’t intervene. Conclusion [ 56 ] The appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the application for benefits at GD3-11. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See the notice of decision at GD3-25. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See the request for reconsideration at GD3-29. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See the notice of reconsideration decision at GD3-43. I note that the Commission decided on reconsideration that the Claimant was available for work. So, this issue wasn’t in dispute before the General Division. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See the General Division decision at AD1A-2. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See the arguments in support of the application to the Appeal Division at AD4-3. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See the Commission’s submissions at AD3-1. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act  ( DESD  Act). Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See para 29 of the Federal Court of Appeal decision in [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  157. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See para 27 of the Federal Court of Appeal decision in [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  157. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See para 19 of the General Division decision at AD1A-5. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See para 15 of the General Division decision at AD1A-4. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See the Appellant’s arguments at AD4-6. Also, listen to the recording of the General Division hearing at 0:11:39. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 Listen to the recording of the General Division hearing at 0:11:50. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See the Claimant’s arguments at AD4-6. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See the Claimant’s arguments at para 21 of AD4-7. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See the General Division decision at para 17 of AD1A-4. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See the emails at GD5-2. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 The Appeal Division can’t normally accept new evidence. See para 35 of the Federal Court of Appeal decision in [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  157. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See the notes about a phone call with the Claimant at GD3-20. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See the request for reconsideration at GD3-29. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See the notes about a phone conversation with the Claimant at GD3-39. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See the resignation letter at GD3-40. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See the notes about a December 8, 2025, phone call with the Claimant and her representative at GD3-36. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 In a call on September 18, 2025, the Claimant said that she quit to get her [NAME] pension. See the notes at GD3-20. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See the notes about a telephone conversation at GD3-41. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See para 24 of the General Division decision at AD1A-6. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See para 24 of the General Division decision at AD1A-6. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See para 9 of the Federal Court of Appeal decision in [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  21. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See para 9 of the Federal Court of Appeal decision in [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  21. Return to footnote 31 referrer