Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] T. S. is the Claimant in this case. I’m refusing her request for leave (permission) to appeal. Her appeal will not proceed.

Overview

[2] The Claimant went to Florida on vacation in December 2021. However, she had to extend her trip when her and her husband were infected with COVID-19. When she got back to Canada, the Claimant applied for Employment Insurance (EI) sickness benefits.

[3] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that the Claimant wasn’t entitled to benefits while she was outside Canada.

[4] The Claimant appealed the Commission’s decision to the Tribunal’s General Division and lost. The Claimant now wants to appeal the General Division decision to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. However, she needs permission for her file to move forward.

[5] The Claimant’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success. I have no choice, then, but to refuse permission to appeal.

Issue

[6] The Claimant is arguing one issue: Could the General Division have made a relevant error by concluding that the Claimant’s couldn’t rely on an exception to the general rule that people can’t be paid EI benefits while outside of Canada?^{Footnote 1}

Analysis

[7] Most Appeal Division files follow a two-step process. This appeal is at step one: permission to appeal.

[8] The legal test the Claimant needs to meet at this step is low: Is there any arguable ground on which the appeal might succeed?^{Footnote 2} If the appeal has no reasonable chance of success, then I must refuse permission to appeal.^{Footnote 3}

[9] To decide this question, I focused on whether the General Division could have made one of the errors that the law says I can consider.^{Footnote 4}

The Claimant’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success

[10] The Claimant argues that the General Division made an error by failing to recognize that she was residing temporarily in the United States. According to the Claimant, this puts her within an exception to the rule against receiving benefits while outside of Canada.^{Footnote 5}

[11] The exception that the Claimant is relying on cannot help her. Regardless of whether the Claimant was temporarily residing in Canada, the exception only applies to people who are in an American state that is contiguous to Canada. In other words, a state that shares a border with Canada.

[12] Instead, the Claimant was in Florida. Florida is not contiguous to Canada, so the exception cannot apply in her case.

[13] As a result, I’ve concluded that the Claimant’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success.

[14] Aside from the Claimant’s arguments, I also reviewed the file and examined the General Division decision.^{Footnote 6} The General Division summarized the law and used evidence to support its decision. I didn’t find evidence supporting the Claimant’s appeal that the General Division might have ignored or misinterpreted.

Conclusion

[15] I’ve concluded that the Claimant’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success. I have no choice, then, but to refuse permission to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed.