Employee did not raise any errors in decision of Social Security Tribunal other than conclusion

Public Law - Social Programs - Employment insurance

Employee was laid-off and given severance package in 2003 after 18 years of employment. One month later, employee was diagnosed with bone tumor in her left hand and in July 2004 employee was approved 15-week period of sick benefits antedated to February 2004. In 2014, employee applied under s. 10(4) of Employment Insurance Act for regular employment insurance benefits antedated to 2004. Social Security Tribunal (General Division) (GD-SST) denied her claim because good cause for delay in making claim had not been found. Request for leave to appeal that decision was denied by Social Security Tribunal (Appeal Division) (AD-SST). Employee’s application for judicial review of AD-SST decision was dismissed. Employee appealed. Appeal dismissed. Judge correctly identified and applied standard of review of reasonableness, thoroughly and thoughtfully reviewed evidence and arguments advanced by employee and was unable to identify any error on part of AD-SST warranting judicial intervention. Before GD-SST, employee did not show that there was good cause for delay in making claim and that good cause existed throughout entire ten-year period of delay. Before AD-SST, employee did not raise any errors in decision of GD-SST other than its conclusion, and evidence and arguments presented were insufficient to satisfy AD-SST that any one of enumerated grounds of appeal had reasonable chance of success. Employee was basically asking AD-SST, as she asked Federal Court and this Court, to re-evaluate and reweigh evidence that was put before GD-SST, which was not role of this Court. No error was identified on part of AD-SST that would warrant intervention. It was reasonable for AD-SST to refuse leave to appeal.

Sherwood v. Canada (Attorney General) (2019), 2019 CarswellNat 2336, 2019 FCA 166, Johanne Gauthier J.A., Wyman W. Webb J.A., and Marianne Rivoalen J.A. (F.C.A.); affirmed (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 6182, 2017 CarswellNat 6691, 2017 FC 998, 2017 CF 998, Patrick Gleeson J. (F.C.).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca

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

Law professor Ardi Imseis joins UN commission investigating Yemen civil war human rights violations

Outsized award against insurer should incentivize fairness in LAT, says lawyer

Canada is among the first to countries to release guidelines for combining mediation and arbitration

Environmental lawyers seek amendments to Clean Water Act

Nearly 46% of readers support more progressive LSO fee structure

Lenczner Slaght expands its referral network for female lawyers to corporate practice areas

Most Read Articles

How lawyers brought down internet trolls — without ever uncovering their identities

Ontario’s house-poor homeowners could be tempted by fraud and real estate lawyers are on high alert

Clayton Ruby: Independent commission must fix Canada’s ‘humiliating’ record of wrongful conviction

Outsized award against insurer should incentivize fairness in LAT, says lawyer