Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed. I find the calculation of the Appellant’s maximum number of weeks of employment insurance benefits is correct. The result is that he is not entitled to any further benefits.

Overview

[2] The Appellant, who I will refer to as the Claimant, worked as a salesperson. He sold recreational vehicles. The Claimant quit his employment, and made a claim for employment insurance (EI) benefits. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission, which I will refer to as the Commission, determined the Claimant qualified for 17 weeks of EI benefits, based on his regional rate of unemployment and hours of insurable employment accumulated. The Claimant requested reconsideration, and the Commission upheld its decision. The Claimant appeals the decision to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal), arguing he had more hours of insurable employment which should have been used in calculating his weeks of entitlement.

Issue

[3] Is the Claimant entitled to a greater number of weeks of EI benefits in his benefit period?

Analysis

[4] I find the Claimant’s appeal must fail because the Commission correctly calculated the number of weeks he is entitled to EI benefits.

[5] The Claimant made a claim for EI benefits on December 13, 2018, effective November 18, 2018. The Commission made a decision on January 7, 2019, finding the Claimant was subject to a violation and required 998 hours of insurable employment to establish a benefit period, but had only 800 hours. The Commission later rescinded the violation, by letter dated February 21, 2019, and determined the Claimant was entitled to 17 weeks of EI benefits. The Commission issued a reconsideration decision on April 4, 2019, upholding its finding that the Claimant was entitled to 17 weeks of EI benefits.

[6] The Claimant’s evidence is that he worked on the basis of commission, so was paid based only on sales. He testified that he worked far more than 40 hours per week, because his income related to how many products he sold. The Claimant testified that he did not receive a base salary, and identified instances in the file where the employer gave incorrect information relating to how he was paid.^{Footnote 1} The Claimant submitted that he consistently worked more than 80 hours per week, and his position is that all of his hours should be considered when calculating his entitlement to EI benefits.  

[7] I appreciate the Claimant’s position but have no jurisdiction over hours of employment, which is in the jurisdiction of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).^{Footnote 2} While I do not question that the Claimant worked more than 40 hours per week in his efforts to sell product and make more money, the CRA is the organization that is able to determine whether the Claimant had more hours of insurable employment than are reflected on his Record of Employment.

[8] In this case, the Commission requested a ruling from the CRA, to confirm the Claimant’s insurability. The CRA rendered a decision on March 28, 2019, finding the Claimant was an employee from June 4, 2018, until November 2, 2018, and accumulated 800 hours of insurable employment. I have no jurisdiction to find otherwise.

[9] The Claimant lives in the Moncton region, where the regional rate of unemployment throughout 2018 was between 6 and 7 percent.^{Footnote 3} The CRA ruling found the Claimant accumulated 800 hours of insurable employment from June 4, 2018, until November 2, 2018. Based on the Employment Insurance Act, using the regional unemployment rate and hours of insurable employment identified above, the Claimant was entitled to 17 weeks of EI benefits.^{Footnote 4}

[10] The Claimant gave extensive testimony at the hearing relating to his work, how much time he spent working, and his difficult relationship with a supervisor. He also recounted his experiences with homelessness and poverty, which he related to both the lengthy EI process and his previous employment. I note this, not because it impacts the decision, but because the Claimant took the time to explain a difficult situation and I acknowledge that I heard him and appreciate that I cannot understand how difficult his life was during this time. I am, however, an adjudicator and must make decisions based on the evidence and within the jurisdiction given to me by the law. For the reasons above, I cannot disturb the Commission’s decision in this case. Should the Claimant wish to dispute the CRA ruling and its determination that he has 800 hours of insurable employment, he may wish to contact the CRA for further information.^{Footnote 5}

Conclusion

[11] The appeal is dismissed. I find the Claimant’s weeks of entitlement have been correctly calculated and he is not entitled to further weeks of EI benefits.