Applicant’s arguments raised disagreements with application of settled principles to facts of her case

Federal appeal | Public Law | Social programs | Employment insurance

Judicial review. Social Security Tribunal-General Division (SST-GD) found that applicant was not entitled to receive employment insurance (EI) benefits as she left her employment without just cause because there were reasonable alternatives open to her before resigning. Social Security Tribunal-Appeal Division (SST-AD) dismissed applicant’s appeal because SST-GD did not fail to observe natural justice and did not err in fact or law. Applicant brought application for judicial review. Application dismissed. Decision of SST-AD was reasonable because it was not open to it to intervene in light of s. 58 of Department of Employment and Social Development Act. Applicant’s arguments, that she had just cause to leave employment due to systemic sex-based harassment or had reasonable assurance of other employment, sought to have her case re-decided on merits, which was not role of court. As applicant’s arguments raised disagreement with application of settled principles to facts of her case, it was reasonable for SST-AD to dismiss her appeal. 

Cameron v. Canada (Attorney General) (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 2712, 2018 FCA 100, D.G. Near J.A., Mary J.L. Gleason J.A., and J.B. Laskin J.A. (F.C.A.).

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

The tale of Umar Zameer's two trials – the criminal court and the court of public opinion

Court of Appeal clarifies how tort of abuse of process interacts with criminal proceedings

Mariam Moktar elected second vice-president of the Ontario Bar Association

Ontario Superior Court grants plaintiff's motion to add new defendant in slip and fall case

Ontario Court of Appeal dismisses First Nations' appeal over environmental regulation changes

LSO bencher Murray Klippenstein given "substantial indemnity" costs in suit against legal regulator

Most Read Articles

LSO bencher Murray Klippenstein given "substantial indemnity" costs in suit against legal regulator

The tale of Umar Zameer's two trials – the criminal court and the court of public opinion

Ontario Superior Court finds plaintiff contributorily negligent in slip and fall case

Court of Appeal clarifies how tort of abuse of process interacts with criminal proceedings