Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appellant challenged the CRA’s ruling that he had no insurable employment and was ineligible for Employment Insurance.

• The General Division of the Social Security Tribunal held it was bound by the CRA’s insurability ruling under section 90 of the Employment Insurance Act.

• Mr. Chen did not appeal the CRA’s ruling directly, which was his only viable remedy under the Act.

• The Appeal Division denied leave to appeal on grounds the case had no reasonable chance of success.

• Federal Court upheld the Tribunal’s reasoning, citing statutory limits on tribunal jurisdiction.

• Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and awarded costs against the appellant.

Facts and outcome of the case

Wei Chen appealed a decision of the Federal Court, which had previously dismissed his application for judicial review. The underlying issue arose from a ruling by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that Chen was neither an employee nor self-employed under subsection 152.01(1) of the Employment Insurance Act. As a result, the CRA determined that he was not eligible for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits.

During the proceedings before the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal, the tribunal member requested the Canadian Employment Insurance Commission to seek a CRA ruling on Chen’s employment status. The CRA concluded he had no insurable employment, and based on that ruling, the General Division dismissed his appeal. Although the Appeal Division later found procedural unfairness and remitted the case back to the General Division, that Division reaffirmed it was bound by the CRA's determination and cited Attorney General of Canada v. Romano, which supports that only the CRA has jurisdiction over such matters.

Chen did not appeal the CRA ruling itself but instead sought leave to appeal the General Division’s decision once more. The Appeal Division refused leave, stating his case had no chance of success. The Federal Court upheld this refusal, concluding that the Tribunal acted within the bounds of the statutory framework and recognized the CRA’s exclusive authority to determine insurability.

The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the Federal Court’s reasoning and dismissed the appeal. The Court reaffirmed that tribunals must rely on CRA decisions in matters of employment insurability and found no procedural error or jurisdictional overreach. Costs were awarded against Chen, though no specific monetary figure was stated. The respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, was represented by counsel from the Department of Justice, while Chen represented himself throughout.