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 daily newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please complete the form below and click on subscribe for daily newsletters from Law Times.

Recent articles & video

Amid enactment of sweeping law enforcement Bill C-75, LSO seeks status quo for students, paralegals

LSO must stand up for racialized licensees, says prospective returning bencher

OBA summit to bring together legal sector equality advocates

Federal government names Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization officers

Baker McKenzie adds senior tech strength to global M&A team

Alexander Holburn opens Toronto office

Most Read Articles

Appeal court ‘withdraws’ real estate decision after it was signed in error

Challenges continue for legal aid practitioners despite funding boost from Ottawa

Province should be cautious using ADR for domestic violence cases, say lawyers

Canadian law firms spending more on legal tech, says Thomson Reuters