Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review challenging the Social Security Tribunal Appeal Division’s refusal of leave to appeal an Employment Insurance disqualification and penalty decision

• Dispute centred on whether the applicant, a truck driver, voluntarily left three one-day jobs without just cause while on an EI claim

• Mental health problems and family caregiving needs were advanced as explanations but were not accepted as just cause or as negating “knowing” misrepresentation

• Tribunal and court applied the Employment Insurance Act and case law holding that “knowing” misrepresentation does not require an intent to defraud

• Allegations of procedural unfairness and reasonable apprehension of bias at the tribunal were rejected for lack of supporting evidence

• The court upheld the Appeal Division’s decision and dismissed the judicial review without costs, making the Attorney General of Canada the successful party

Facts and background of the case
The case involves an application for judicial review by Brent William Tymchuk against the Attorney General of Canada concerning Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. Mr. Tymchuk, a truck driver, claimed EI benefits and then held three very short jobs with Royal Environmental Inc. and Marid Industries Limited in 2023 and 2024, each ending after one day. He told the Canada Employment Insurance Commission that he left work because of family obligations, his fiancée’s illness, and mental health concerns that made him feel unsafe driving. The Commission concluded he had voluntarily left employment without just cause and, in a June 28, 2024 decision later confirmed on reconsideration, disqualified him from benefits and imposed a warning and an unclassified violation for misrepresentation.

Tribunal decisions and legal framework
On appeal, the Social Security Tribunal General Division partially allowed his appeal by finding him capable of and available for work only from August 9, 2023, but otherwise confirmed that he voluntarily left his jobs without just cause and knowingly misrepresented his work, availability, and earnings. It held that he had reasonable alternatives to quitting, such as consulting a doctor or seeking accommodations from his employers. The Appeal Division refused leave to appeal under the Department of Employment and Social Development Act, finding no arguable case of factual or legal error. It applied the Employment Insurance Act and appellate authorities to confirm that a penalty may be imposed where a claimant subjectively knows their statements are false or misleading, even without an intent to defraud.

Procedural fairness and judicial review outcome
Before the Federal Court, Mr. Tymchuk alleged procedural unfairness and a reasonable apprehension of bias, claiming the General Division member misled him and fed him answers. The court held that active questioning is contemplated by the tribunal’s rules and found no evidence of bias or unfairness. Applying reasonableness review to the Appeal Division’s decision, the court concluded that the tribunal had considered his mental health and family circumstances but reasonably determined they did not undermine the findings of voluntary leaving and knowing misrepresentation. The application for judicial review was dismissed, with the Attorney General of Canada as the successful party. No costs or damages were awarded, and there was no monetary amount ordered in favour of either side.