Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] N. M.’s appeal is denied. She did not have sufficient hours of insurable employment in her qualifying period to increase her weeks of benefits.

Overview

[2] N. M. (whom I shall call the Claimant) lost her job and applied for regular employment insurance benefits. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (whom I shall call the Commission) approved the Claimant for 22 weeks of benefits. The Commission’s decision was based on the Claimant’s number of hours of insurable employment worked in her qualifying period. The Claimant felt she was entitled to additional weeks of benefits and appealed to the Tribunal. I find that the Claimant is did not have sufficient hours in her qualifying period to increase her weeks of benefits.

Issue

[3] The issue to be determined is if the Claimant had sufficient hours of insurable employment in her qualifying period to increase her weeks of benefits.

Analysis

[4] To receive regular benefits, claimants must have accumulated in their qualifying period a minimum number of hours of insurable employment.^{Footnote 1} They cannot use hours accumulated outside their qualifying period to qualify for benefits.

[5] The qualifying period is the 52 weeks before the benefit period starts unless there has been an “immediately preceding” benefit period.^{Footnote 2}

[6] The number of hours of insurable employment required is calculated according to the rate of unemployment in the region where the claimant lived.

[7] Claimants have the burden or proof to show that they meet the qualifying conditions to receive benefits.^{Footnote 3}

Issue: Did the Claimant have sufficient hours in her qualifying period to increase her weeks of benefits?

[8] The Claimant is only entitled to 22 weeks of employment insurance benefits. She did not have sufficient hours of insurable employment in her qualifying period to increase her entitled weeks of benefits.

[9] The Commission submitted that the Claimant is only entitled to 22 weeks of employment insurance benefits. To calculate the weeks of benefits, the Commission relied upon the unemployment rate in the Claimant’s region, the number of insurable hours that the Claimant accumulated, and the qualifying period in which the Claimant had to accumulate those hours. The Claimant’s sole dispute is the qualifying period used by the Commission to calculate her weeks of benefits.

[10] The Commission submitted that the Claimant resided in the economic region of Montreal and the unemployment rate in that region was 6.1% on January 6, 2019. The Commission provided a certificate to support their position. The Claimant testified that she lived in Montreal and did not dispute the unemployment rate. I find that the unemployment rate for use in calculating the Claimant’s entitlement to employment insurance benefits is 6.1%.

[11] The Commission submitted that the Claimant accumulated 1,177 hours of insurable employment in her qualifying period. The Record of Employment completed by the Claimant’s employer states that the Claimant accumulated 1,177 hours of employment between March 18, 2018 and October 25, 2018. The Claimant testified that she did not work between January 3, 2018 and March 18, 2018 because she was sick. She received employment insurance sickness benefits during her illness. The Claimant also testified that she did not work between when she lost her job (October 25, 2018) and when she applied for employment insurance benefits (January 9, 2019). I find that the Claimant accumulated 1,177 hours of insurable employment between January 7, 2018 and January 6, 2019.

[12] The Commission submitted that the appropriate qualifying period was January 7, 2018 to January 6, 2019. The Claimant disputes this calculation and submits that her qualifying period should be longer because she was ill between January 3, 2018 and March 18, 2018 and in receipt of employment insurance sickness benefits. The Claimant testified that she was unable to work during that time and unable to accumulate hours of insurable employment. The Claimant submits that her inability to accumulate hours of insurable employment while in receipt of employment insurance benefits should be taken into account in determining the appropriate qualifying period.

[13] The Claimant does not dispute that the beginning of her benefit period was January 7, 2019. Rather, the Claimant disputes when her qualifying period should begin. The Claimant’s qualifying period will begin on the later of (a) 52 weeks before her benefit period began and (b) the first day of her preceding benefit period.^{Footnote 4}. 52 weeks before her benefit period began is January 7, 2018. Turning to the question of a preceding benefit period, the Claimant testified that she received employment insurance sickness benefits following her stopping work on January 3, 2018. The Commission submits that the first day of the Claimant’s immediately preceding period of benefits was January 7, 2018. Based on the Claimant’s testimony, her Records of Employment, and Commission’s submission, I find that the first day of her preceding benefit period was January 7, 2018.

[14] In either instance of calculating the beginning of the Claimant’s qualifying period as (a) 52 weeks before her benefit period began or (b) the first day of the Claimant’s preceding benefit period, the Claimant’s qualifying period begins on the same day - January 7, 2018. I find that the Claimant’s qualifying period is from January 7, 2018 to January 6, 2019. Although the impact of a preceding benefit period can seem harsh, the Claimant already used her previous hours of insurable employment to qualify for sickness benefits. She cannot reuse those same hours to qualify for another period of benefits.

[15] Based on my finding that the Claimant’s qualifying period is from January 7, 2018 to January 6, 2019 and the evidence that the Claimant only accumulated 1,177 hours of insurable employment in her qualifying period, I find that the Claimant is only entitled to 22 weeks of employment insurance benefits.^{Footnote 5}

[16] The evidence before me supports a finding that the Claimant did not have sufficient hours of insurable employment in her qualifying period to increase her entitled weeks of benefits.

[17] While the Claimant did not have enough hours in her qualifying period to increase her entitled weeks of benefits, she argued that she worked for six years before losing her job and that the illness entitling her to receive sickness benefits in early 2018 meant she could not work and left her with only 1,177 insurable hours in her qualifying period. The Claimant argued that in the circumstances she should get increased benefits despite not having sufficient hours. While I sympathize with her circumstances, I cannot rewrite the legislation and can only interpret it according to its plain meaning.^{Footnote 6}

Conclusion

[18] The appeal is denied.