Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed. The result is that the Appellant is not entitled to further weeks of employment insurance benefits.

Overview

[2] The Appellant, who I will refer to as the Claimant, left Canada for four weeks to visit his ill mother, while on an employment insurance (EI) claim. The Claimant told the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) that he would be absent from the country, and it disentitled him from receiving EI benefits for the period of his absence. The Commission later amended its decision, and disentitled the Claimant for only three of the four weeks. The Claimant appeals the Commission’s decision because he does not believe he was paid for the additional week of EI benefits.

Issue

[3] Is the Claimant entitled to further weeks of EI benefits due to the Commission’s decision to pay him for one of the four weeks he was absent Canada?

Analysis

[4] To be entitled to receive regular EI benefits, claimants have to prove that they are capable of and available for work and unable to obtain suitable employment.^{Footnote 1}

[5] The Employment Insurance Act is designed so that only those who are genuinely unemployed and actively seeking work will receive benefits.^{Footnote 2} To this end, the Employment Insurance Act states that a claimant is not entitled to receive benefits for any period during which the claimant is not in Canada.^{Footnote 3}

[6] The Employment Insurance Regulations provide some exceptions to the Employment Insurance Act, and include that a claimant who is not a self-employed person is not disentitled from receiving benefits, “for the reason of being outside of Canada if the travel was for a period of not more than seven consecutive days to visit a member of the Claimant’s immediate family who is seriously ill or injured.”^{Footnote 4}

[7] The Claimant made a claim for EI benefits effective August 19, 2018. The Claim was established and the Commission determined the Claimant was entitled to 36 weeks of EI benefits. The Claimant does not dispute this.

[8] The Claimant also does not dispute that he was outside Canada for four weeks, from February 23, 2019, until March 25, 2019. The Commission issued a decision on April 3, 2019, finding the Claimant disentitled from receiving EI benefits for the entire four-week period. The Claimant requested reconsideration, and a Commission agent told him on June 6, 2019, that in the circumstance of visiting his ill mother he was eligible to receive EI benefits for one week of the four weeks he was absent. The agent told the Claimant that the decision would be amended, to, “allow for a payment of seven days.” The Commission issued a reconsideration decision on June 6, 2019, confirming the Claimant was granted a seven-day exemption to allow for payment of one week of benefits, while he was outside Canada to visit his mother.

[9] At the hearing, I reviewed with the Claimant his EI pay history. His benefit period commenced on August 19, 2018. The Commission’s records show that the Claimant was paid for 36 weeks of EI benefits. I asked the Claimant why he believed he was not paid for one week, when the payout chart shows he was paid in 36 weekly pay periods. The Claimant expressed his belief that the Commission’s decision to grant him a seven day exemption and pay him for one week meant that he was entitled to an additional week of EI benefits, meaning he would receive 37 weeks in total.

[10] The Claimant is incorrect in interpreting the Commission’s decision this way. The Claimant’s benefit period was established at 36 weeks, and being outside of Canada did not entitle him to more weeks. The Claimant was disentitled for four weeks, which was later changed to only three weeks. Because of the timing of the claim, the Claimant did not lose any overall weeks of entitlement and was still paid for 36 weeks.

[11] I can appreciate why the Claimant is confused, because he did not “lose” any weeks of EI benefits even though he was disentitled for three weeks, so thought the seven day exemption meant he got an additional week of EI benefits. Disentitlement becomes an issue when someone is close to the end of their benefit period. An issue could have arisen if the Claimant was outside Canada for longer than 4 weeks and returned to Canada at the end of his benefit period, when perhaps the additional weeks could not be paid to him before the benefit period expired. In the current case, the Claimant was paid for the week of February 24, 2019, even though he was out of the country. The disentitlement of three weeks pushed the payment of his remaining benefits back by that amount of time, and if the benefit period had ended before he received all of the payable benefits, he would have lost them. The Claimant did not lose any benefits in this situation, but is not entitled to an additional week of EI benefits.

[12] The determination of weeks of entitlement relates to how many hours of insurable employment the Claimant accumulated in a qualifying period, and the regional rate of unemployment. Being granted a seven day exemption for being absent from Canada allowed the Claimant to receive one week of benefits in a time he would have otherwise been disentitled. It did not entitle him to an additional week of EI benefits.

Conclusion

[13] The appeal is  dismissed. I find the Claimant is not entitled to further weeks of EI benefits because he was already paid for the maximum allowable during this claim.