Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] M. S. is the Claimant. She disagrees with the Canada Employment Insurance Commission’s (Commission) decision about her Employment Insurance (EI) weekly benefit rate. She is appealing this decision to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal).

[2] I must dismiss the Claimant’s appeal. Her benefit period started on August 30, 2020 and so the Commission must use the law in place at that time to calculate her weekly benefit rate. The law doesn’t allow the Commission to increase her weekly benefit rate to $500.

Overview

[3] The Claimant stopped working at the end of August 2020. She applied for EI maternity and parental benefits. The Commission started her benefit period on August 30, 2020. The Commission decided that her weekly benefit rate was $368, based on her earnings. After her EI benefits ended, the Claimant asked the Commission to increase her weekly benefit rate to $500.

[4] The Claimant argues that she should get a weekly benefit rate of $500. She says the Commission changed the law not very long after her benefits started. She says that the Commission should automatically update her benefit rate to reflect the changes to the law.

[5] The Commission disagrees. The Commission says the Claimant’s benefit period started on August 30, 2020, and so it has to use the law in place at that time. The Commission says the law about the $500 weekly benefit rate only came into effect on September 27, 2020.

Issue

[6] Is the Claimant entitled to a weekly benefit rate of $500?

Analysis

[7] In this decision, I will talk about the meaning of the benefit period. So, it is important to understand what I mean by this term.

[8] A benefit period is the window of time in which you can collect EI benefits.^{Footnote 1} When you apply and qualify for EI benefits, the Commission starts a new benefit period. The start of the benefit period isn’t the same thing as the day you get your first payment of EI benefits.

[9] You might collect many different kinds of EI benefits in the same benefit period. For instance, you might collect EI sickness, maternity, and parental benefits in the same benefit period. But even if you collect different kinds of EI benefits, you’re still in the same benefit period.

[10] You can only start a new benefit period if you work enough hours to qualify again and then make a new application.^{Footnote 2}

[11] The Government of Canada made many temporary changes to the EI program during the pandemic. One of the temporary changes affected the EI weekly benefit rate. If your benefit period started on September 27, 2020 or later, your weekly benefit rate would be at least $500.^{Footnote 3}

[12] But, if your benefit period started before September 27, 2020, the Commission had to use the law that was in place at the time.^{Footnote 4}

Issue 1: Is the Claimant entitled to a weekly benefit rate of $500?

[13] I find that the Claimant isn’t entitled to a weekly benefit rate of $500. This is because her benefit period started on August 30, 2020, before the new law came into effect. The Commission has to use the law in place on August 30, 2020 to calculate her weekly benefit rate.

[14] First, I am going to look at the start date of the Claimant’s benefit period.

[15] The Claimant’s last day of work was August 27, 2020 and she applied for EI benefits on September 8, 2020.

[16] The Commission has a policy where it will automatically backdate an application if you apply within four weeks of your last day of work.^{Footnote 5} So, the Commission started the Claimant’s benefit period on August 30, 2020. I see no reason to disagree with the Commission’s decision. The Claimant hasn’t given me any reasons to disagree with the Commission’s decision. So, I agree with the Commission.

[17] I find that the Claimant’s benefit period started on August 30, 2020.

[18] The Claimant says she should get a weekly benefit rate of $500. She makes a few different arguments about why she thinks she is entitled to the higher weekly rate.

[19] First, the Claimant argues that she got her first payment of benefits on October 7, 2020. She says this is after September 27, 2020 and so this means she should get $500 weekly.

[20] The Claimant also argues that she should get $368 a week until September 27, 2020, and then the Commission should bump up her weekly rate of benefits to $500.

[21] The Claimant argues that the Commission could pay $368 a week for her maternity benefits, and then bump up her weekly rate to $500 when her parental benefits started.

[22] Finally, the Claimant argues that the new changes are meant to help people in the pandemic. She says it isn’t fair that she can’t get $500 weekly when the pandemic started in March 2020, well before she applied for maternity and parental benefits.

[23] I am sympathetic to the Claimant’s situation, but I can’t agree with any of her arguments. The Claimant’s benefit period started on August 30, 2020. Even though the Claimant got her first payment on October 7, 2020, the evidence shows that the Commission paid her for the week of August 30, September 6, September 13, and September 20, 2020 in this payment. In other words, her first payment included a payment for the first week of her benefit period.

[24] The law says that anyone with a benefit period starting on September 27, 2020 or later can get a weekly benefit rate of $500. The Claimant’s benefit period didn’t start on or after September 27, 2020. It started on August 30, 2020. She didn’t start a new benefit period when she started collecting parental benefits. Instead, she started collecting a different kind of benefit in the same benefit period.

[25] There is nothing in the law that allows me to change the Claimant’s weekly rate of benefits partway through her benefit period. So I can’t bump up her weekly benefit rate on September 27, 2020 (when new law came into effect) or December 13, 2020 (when her parental benefits started).

[26] I am sympathetic to the Claimant’s situation. I understand that many public health measures started in March 2020. But I have to follow the plain meaning of the law. The law says that the changes to the weekly benefit rate applies to anyone starting a benefit period on or after September 27, 2020. The Claimant’s benefit period started on August 30, 2020. This means that her benefit period started before the changes came into effect.

[27] The Commission had to use the law, as it was on August 30, 2020, to calculate the Claimant’s weekly benefit rate.^{Footnote 6} The Commission looked at the Claimant’s best 14 weeks and calculated her weekly benefit rate as $368. The Claimant didn’t give me any evidence to show that the Commission made its calculations incorrectly. In fact, at the hearing, the Claimant’s representative said he agreed with the Commission’s calculations.

[28] So, I find that the Commission correctly calculated the Claimant’s weekly rate of benefits. She can’t bump up her weekly rate of benefits to $500 because her benefit period started before the law came into effect.

Conclusion

[29] I am dismissing the Claimant’s appeal.