Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Mr. Ponomarov challenged the correct legal test applied to assess misconduct, arguing it was incorrectly applied by the General Division.

• An alleged error arose from the General Division deciding the case on the basis of voluntary leaving rather than on misconduct.

• Misapprehension and mischaracterization of the relevant facts were raised as grounds for appeal.

• The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that reasonableness was the correct standard of review, except with respect to procedural fairness issues.

• Despite encouragement from the Court on several occasions, the appellant failed to address the findings of the Appeal Division or explain why such findings would justify intervention.

• Ultimately, the Court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated that the Appeal Division misapprehended the facts or erred in its application of the law, and was essentially asking the Court to reassess the evidence to reach a different conclusion.

Background and facts of the case

Dmytro Ponomarov, a self-represented litigant, brought an appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal challenging a Federal Court decision dated February 20, 2025 (Ponomarov v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 328). The underlying dispute originated from a decision by the Social Security Tribunal – Appeal Division on a leave application, which Mr. Ponomarov sought to have judicially reviewed. The Federal Court had dismissed that application for judicial review, prompting the appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal.

Issues raised by the appellant

Mr. Ponomarov raised a number of issues on appeal, revolving for the most part around the correct legal test to assess misconduct. He contended that the General Division erred by deciding his case on the basis of voluntary leaving rather than on misconduct. He further alleged that the relevant facts had been misapprehended or mischaracterized by the decision-makers below.

The Court's approach to review

The Federal Court of Appeal clarified that its role on appeal from a Federal Court judicial review decision is to determine whether the Federal Court identified the correct standard of review and properly applied that standard. The Court emphasized that it is now beyond dispute that appellants will bear a strong burden to convince the Court that its intervention is warranted when the Federal Court has convincingly addressed all of their arguments. The Court cited Bank of Montreal v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 189 at para. 4; Kandasamy v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 181 at para. 7; and Canada (Attorney General) v. Canadian Civil Liberties Association, 2026 FCA 6 at para. 161 in support of this principle.

Assessment of the appellant's arguments

The Court found that the Federal Court had correctly identified reasonableness as the applicable standard of review, except with respect to procedural fairness issues, and that it had also thoroughly addressed all of Mr. Ponomarov's arguments. Considering the high degree of deference that a reviewing court must show when applying the reasonableness standard to a decision of an administrative tribunal, and the narrow jurisdiction of the Appeal Division on a leave application, the Court was not convinced that it ought to intervene. Although Mr. Ponomarov had been encouraged to do so by the Court on several occasions, at no time did he address the findings of the Appeal Division or why such findings would justify the Court's intervention.

Ruling and outcome

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered from the bench by Chief Justice Yves de Montigny on March 5, 2026, dismissed the appeal without costs. The Court concluded that Mr. Ponomarov had not convinced it that the Appeal Division misapprehended the facts or erred in its application of the law, and that he was essentially asking the Court to reassess the evidence with a view to reach a different conclusion — which is not the role of the Court. The Attorney General of Canada was the successful party. No exact monetary amount was awarded, as the appeal was dismissed without costs.