Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

[2] Unfortunately, the Appellant cannot get more than 15 weeks of employment insurance (EI) benefits on this claim.

Overview

[3] The Appellant applied for regular EI benefits and the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) determined that, based on the hours of employment the Appellant had in his qualifying period, and his regional rate of unemployment, he was entitled to 15 weeks of EI benefits.

[4] The Appellant argues there are several problems with the Commission’s decision.

[5] First, he says that the unemployment rate is for the total unemployment where he lives, and instead the Commission should use the unemployment rate specific to his field of work as that unemployment rate would be much higher than the general rate.

[6] Second, the Appellant says the Commission should expand his qualifying period beyond 52 weeks, as he meets the criteria to do so.

[7] He also says that it is wrong to limit the qualifying to just 52 weeks, as he has worked hundreds of excess hours (hours beyond the 1820 maximum hours EI considers) in the previous years, and those hours should be carried forward.

[8] The Appellant says it is ridiculous that he has paid into the EI fund for all these years, yet when he finally needs it, he is denied.

[9] What I have to decide, is how many weeks of EI the Appellant can get.

Issue

[10] The Appellant’s request for additional weeks of EI benefits

Analysis

The Appellant’s request for additional weeks of EI benefits

[11] When a person applies for EI, the Commission determines how many weeks of EI they are entitled to.

[12] There is a table in the law^{Footnote 1} that sets out how many weeks of EI a person can get based on the number of insurable hours of employment they have in their qualifying period, along with the regional rate of unemployment applicable to them.

[13] This means I need to know the Appellant’s qualifying period, so I can see how many insurable hours he has in that qualifying period, and the rate of unemployment applicable to him, before I can determine the number of weeks of EI he can receive.

The Appellant’s qualifying period

[14] The qualifying period is the period of time where the Commission looks to see how many hours of insurable employment the Appellant has.

[15] Generally, the qualifying period is the 52 weeks prior to the start date of the benefit period. So, in the Appellant’s case, counting backwards 52 weeks from May 1, 2022, the start date of his benefit period.

[16] The Commission says the Appellant’s qualifying period is from May 2, 2021, to April 30, 2022.

[17] The Commission says they considered extending the Appellant’s qualifying period, but he does not meet the criteria to do so.

[18] The Appellant says he does meet the criteria to extend the qualifying period, as it can be extended due to his attendance at his Doctor of Philosophy program.

[19] Barring that, the Appellant says that limiting the qualifying period to only the 52 weeks prior to the start of the benefit period is a scam, as it is simply to allow the Government to deny more claims so they can raid the EI Fund for more money to funnel into the general accounts to help balance their books.

[20] I find I agree with the submission of the Commission that the Appellant’s qualifying period is from May 2, 2021, to April 30, 2022, for the following reasons.

[21] While a qualifying period is generally 52 weeks prior to the start date of the benefits period, there are a few reasons that allow for the extension of a qualifying period.^{Footnote 2} So, if during any weeks of the qualifying period the Appellant was:

• incapable of work because of a prescribed illness, injury, quarantine or pregnancy;
• confined in a jail, penitentiary or other similar institution and was not found guilty of the offence for which the person was being held or any other offence arising out of the same transaction;
• receiving assistance under employment benefits; or
• receiving payments under a provincial law on the basis of having ceased to work because continuing to work would have resulted in danger to the person, her unborn child or a child whom she was breast-feeding.

[22] The Appellant argues the third point allows for his qualifying period to be extended since he was in a Doctor of Philosophy program, was receiving a stipend to attend, and had been recruited to attend the program.

[23] I find the fact the Appellant was attending a Doctor of Philosophy program during the qualifying period does not allow his qualifying period to be extended.

[24] The Appellant says he was told about the program by someone he knew, and they thought he would be a good candidate for it, so he applied and was eventually accepted. I find this does not show a referral by the Commission such that he was approved to attend his program and receive benefits at the same time. This means he would not have been receiving assistance under employment benefits during his time in his Doctor of Philosophy program.

[25] I further find the Appellant has not argued he meets any of the other exceptions that would allow for an extension to his qualifying period, nor do I see any evidence that would convince me he meets one of the other exceptions.

[26] I understand the Appellant’s strong disagreement with the qualifying period being only 52 weeks (if no extensions can be granted); however, the law is clear, that barring any extension, the 52 weeks immediately prior to the start of the benefit period is the qualifying period^{Footnote 3} and I cannot rewrite the law.

[27] I find, that as it is not possible to grant the Appellant any extensions to his qualifying period, and May 2, 2021, to April 30, 2022, is the 52 weeks immediately prior to the start of the Appellant’s benefit period, May 2, 2021, to April 30, 2022, is the Appellant’s qualifying period.

The hours in the qualifying period

[28] The Commission says that the Appellant has a total of 790 hours of insurable employment in his qualifying period of May 2, 2021, to April 30, 2022.

[29] The Appellant says that it should not only be the hours he worked within the qualifying period that are counted towards how many weeks of EI he can get.

[30] The Appellant argues that he has worked many excess hours over and above what EI considers the maximum in a year (1820) and all those excess hours should be carried forward until such time that he claims EI.

[31] He says it is pointless to have to pay into a system year after year if all those hours of work and all those years of paying into the system count for nothing when he actually needs EI to help him.

[32] I can completely understand the Appellant’s frustration at working thousands of hours, paying tens of thousands of dollars into EI and then having all of that be irrelevant when he goes to file a claim.

[33] However, despite my understanding of the roots of the Appellant’s frustration with the system, I cannot rewrite the law, and the law says that it is only the number of hours in the qualifying period that is used to determine how many weeks of EI the Appellant can get.^{Footnote 4}

[34] I find that as the Appellant has not proven that he has more hours of employment than what the Commission has said,^{Footnote 5} and I see nothing that would convince me the Commission in incorrect, I find I accept the Commission’s submission that the Appellant has 790 hours of insurable employment in his qualifying period.

The regional rate of unemployment

[35] The Commission submits that the rate of unemployment applicable to the Appellant is 4.5%.^{Footnote 6}

[36] The Appellant says that while 4.5% might be the total rate of unemployment in his region, the Commission should use the actual rate of unemployment for the field he is trying to find work in.

[37] The Appellant says it is not fair to use the total rate of unemployment as that does not reflect the difficulties he would have finding a job in his industry as it would take much more time than 15 weeks for him to find a job.

[38] I totally understand the logic behind the Appellant’s argument, as the ease with which someone may find an entry level job at a fast-food restaurant may differ significantly from a professional looking for a specific position of which there may not be many. However, I am bound by the law, and the law states that the rate of unemployment applicable to the Appellant is the average of the seasonally adjusted monthly rates of unemployment for the last three-month period for which statistics were produced by Statistics Canada prior to the week the benefit period would start.^{Footnote 7}

[39] This means that I cannot use the rate of unemployment for a specific field of employment to determine how many weeks of unemployment the Appellant is entitled to as I cannot change the law.

[40] I find I accept the Commission’s submission that the unemployed rate applicable to the Appellant is 4.5% as the Appellant has not directly disputed the rate is incorrect (only that it should not be the total rate of unemployment as noted above) nor do I see any evidence that would lead me to doubt the rate offered by the Commission.

The weeks of EI the Appellant can get

[41] So, now that I know the Appellant’s hours of insurable employment (790) and his regional rate of unemployment (4.5%) I can look at the Table in the law, to see how many weeks of EI the Appellant can get.

[42] When I took at the Table (Schedule I in the Act) it says that with 790 hours of employment in his qualifying period and an applicable unemployment rate of 4.5% that he is entitled to 15 weeks of EI benefits.^{Footnote 8}

Conclusion

[43] The appeal is dismissed. There is nothing I can do for the Appellant to give him more weeks of EI.

[44] I cannot rewrite the law and the law says that with the hours of insurable employment the Appellant has in his qualifying period (790) and the unemployment in his region (4.5%) he is only entitled to 15 weeks of EI.