Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] I am allowing the appeals by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission). The General Division made an error of law. This error allows me to give the decision the General Division should have given.

[2] J. L. chose to receive parental benefits under the extended option. She could not change her choice to the standard option. This is because, when she made her request, she had already started receiving extended benefits. M. G. is bound by the option that J. L. selected.

Overview

[3] First, J. L. applied to receive maternity benefits followed by parental benefits. On her application, she chose to receive extended parental benefits. Then, her partner, M. G., applied for standard parental benefits.

[4] The standard option offers a higher rate of benefits, payable for up to 35 weeks. The extended option offers a lower rate, payable for up to 61 weeks. The parental benefits are in addition to the 15 weeks of maternity benefits.

[5] The Commission paid J. L. extended parental benefits for 42 weeks, from April 2021 to February 2022. In May 2022, J. L. asked for standard parental benefits instead. The Commission denied this request, saying that the option can’t be changed once it has started paying parental benefits.

[6] The Claimants appealed the Commission’s decision to the Tribunal’s General Division. The General Division allowed the appeals, saying that the partners had chosen the standard option, since it better matched with J. L.’s intentions of taking a year’s leave.

[7] The Commission is now appealing the General Division decision to the Appeal Division. It argues, among other things, that the General Division made an error of law.

[8] I find that the Commission is correct. I am allowing its appeals.

Issues

[9] The issues are as follows:

1. a) Did the General Division make an error of law in finding that the option that the partners chose was the one that best matched their intentions?
2. b) If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
3. c) Were the partners entitled to standard parental benefits?

Analysis

[10] The law allows me to intervene in this case if the General Division made an error of law.^{Footnote 1}

The General Division made an error of law

[11] The General Division made an error of law in finding that the parental benefits option that the Claimants chose was the one that best matched their intentions.

[12] When you apply for Employment Insurance parental benefits, you have to choose between the standard and extended options.^{Footnote 2}

[13] On her application, J. L. selected the extended option.^{Footnote 3}

[14] However, J. L. says that she always intended to select the standard option, since the plan was to take only a year’s leave. She says that the information she got from her employer and a certain language barrier resulted in confusion and led her to tick the wrong box on her application.

[15] So, the issue before the General Division was whether the Claimants were entitled to standard parental benefits. On this point, the General Division said the following (in paragraph 17 of its decision):

The option that the Claimants meant to choose when they filled out their applications is important. At that moment, did they mean to choose the standard or extended option?

[16] The General Division was satisfied that J. L. had always intended to take a year’s leave. So, it decided that J. L. had chosen the standard option, since it was more consistent with the length of her leave and was the best option financially.

[17] However, I find that the General Division made an error by not considering the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Hull.^{Footnote 4} In that decision, which the General Division had to follow, the Court said that a person’s choice is what they indicated on the application form, not what best matches their intentions.

[18] In addition, once a person has made their choice and the Commission has started paying them benefits, it is impossible to change the choice.^{Footnote 5}

[19] This means that the General Division made an error of law by giving more weight, in its decision, to J. L.’s intentions than to what she had indicated on her application form.

I will give the decision the General Division should have given

[20] At the hearing, the parties agreed that the evidence is complete and that I am in a position to give the decision the General Division should have given. I have reached the same conclusion.^{Footnote 6}

[21] J. L. and M. G. aren’t arguing that they were prevented from presenting their case in any way. The main facts aren’t in dispute, and the issue is a rather narrow one.

[22] This means that I can decide whether the Claimants were entitled to standard parental benefits.

The partners weren’t entitled to standard parental benefits

[23] J. L.’s application form clearly indicates that she chose to receive extended parental benefits.^{Footnote 7} She also asked for 52 weeks of benefits, which is impossible under the standard option.

[24] On May 2, 2022, the Commission received a request from the Claimants to change the type of parental benefits.

[25] However, the Commission could not change the type of benefits, since it had already started paying J. L. extended parental benefits. The payments started on April 30, 2021.^{Footnote 8}

[26] I acknowledge that M. G. applied for standard parental benefits.^{Footnote 9} But, he was bound by J. L.’s choice, since she made her choice first.^{Footnote 10}

[27] J. L. says that she made an innocent mistake by ticking the wrong box on her application form. I sympathize with the couple’s situation. However, I have to follow the Federal Court of Appeal’s decisions and respect the choice that J. L. made on her application form. In addition, I can’t rewrite or circumvent the law, even in very sympathetic cases.

Conclusion

[28] I am allowing the Commission’s appeals.

[29] The General Division made an error of law in finding that the option that the partners chose was the one that best matched their intentions. The General Division’s error allows me to give the decision the General Division should have given. Essentially, the partners aren’t entitled to standard parental benefits.