Employment Insurance Appeal Allowed Due to Legal Error

OUTCOME: Allowed

Citation: JM  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  [NAME]  159 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [COUNSEL] under appeal: General Division March 10, 2026 (GE-26-102) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: May 13, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: May 14, 2026 File number: AD-26-169 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am allowing the appeal. The General Division made an error of law. I am referring the matter to the [NAME] to reconsider. Overview [ 2 ] The [APPELLANT] started a new job as a receptionist on October 7, 2020, and quit on October 10, 2020. The Commission determined that she quit her job without just cause. This meant it could not pay her benefits. [ 3 ] The [APPELLANT] asked the Commission to reconsider, but the Commission would not change its decision. The [APPELLANT] appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal, which dismissed her appeal. She next appealed to the Appeal Division. [ 4 ] I am allowing the appeal. The General Division made an error of law. I am referring the matter to the [NAME] to reconsider. Issues [ 5 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Did the General Division make an error of fact? b) Did the General Division make an error of law by failing to consider all the circumstances? Analysis [ 6 ] The Appeal Division may only consider errors that fall within one of the following grounds of appeal: a) The General Division hearing process was not fair in some way. b) The General Division did not decide an issue that it should have decided. Or, it decided something it did not have the power to decide (error of jurisdiction). c) The General Division made an error of law when making its decision. d) The General Division based its decision on an important error of fact. Footnote 1 Error of fact [ 7 ] The [APPELLANT] written submissions suggest that she believes the General Division made an error of fact. [ 8 ] The General Division did not make an error of fact. [ 9 ] The [APPELLANT] arguments were focused on the manner in which the General Division analyzed the evidence to reach its decision. She did not point to specific evidence that the General Division ignored or overlooked. [ 10 ] I can only find an error of fact where I accept that the General Division has based its decision on a finding of fact that ignores or misunderstands relevant evidence, or on a finding that does not follow logically from the evidence. Footnote 2 I have no authority to interfere with how the General Division weighed or evaluated the evidence, even if I might have decided differently. Footnote 3 Error of law [ 11 ] The [APPELLANT] also argued that the General Division failed to fully consider all her circumstances. She listed some of the circumstances listed in section 29(c) of the Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act), including “sexual or other harassment,” “working conditions that constitute a danger to health or safety,” “significant changes in work duties,” and “practices of an employer that are contrary to law.” [ 12 ] The [APPELLANT] told the General Division expressly that these circumstances were present at the time that she quit her job. [ 13 ] The General Division made an error of law by failing to have regard to all the circumstances, as required by the EI Act. It acknowledged that the [APPELLANT] raised each of the circumstances she mentioned, except the final one; practices of an employer contrary to law. Footnote 4 However, it made no findings as to whether any of these circumstances were actually present at the time that she quit. It analyzed whether she had reasonable alternatives without regard to how their availability may have been impacted by her circumstances. [ 14 ] The Commission has conceded that this is an error of law and I agree. Remedy [ 15 ] I have the power to refer the matter to the [NAME] for reconsideration, and I also have the power to make the decision that the General Division should have made. Footnote 5 [ 16 ] However, I can only make the decision that the General Division should have made if the record is complete. Both the Commission and the Claimant suggest that the record is not complete. The Commission says that the [APPELLANT] was not given a fair opportunity to address how her circumstances impacted her reasonable alternatives. In particular, the Commission notes that there was no evidence on whether it was reasonable to expect the [APPELLANT] to escalate her concerns to a Human Resources department or the boss of her supervisor. Footnote 6 [ 17 ] I agree with the Commission. The Claimant did not have a fair opportunity to address the reasonableness of alternatives in light of the various circumstances she raised. Conclusion [ 18 ] The appeal is allowed. The General Division made an error of law. I am referring the matter to the Board of Appeals to reconsider. Footnotes Footnote 1 This is a plain-language version of the three grounds. The full text is in section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESDA ). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 This is a paraphrase. Section 58(1)(c) of the DESDA actually says that an error of fact is where the General Division “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 2 referrer Footnote 3 See, for example: [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2017  FC  439, [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2017  FC  354, [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  1254, [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  1367. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See para 37 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See sections 59(1) and 64 of the DESDA . Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See para 42 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 6 referrer