Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The Claimant’s appeal is dismissed. This decision explains why.

[2] The Claimant is entitled to 27 weeks of employment insurance (EI) regular benefits for his claim starting on October 3, 2021. This is what he was paid.

Overview

[3] The Claimant in this appeal is A. M. The issue in this appeal is how many weeks of EI regular benefits he can get for his claim starting on October 3, 2021.

[4] After the Claimant was lost his job in June 2020, he established a claim for Emergency Response Benefits (EI-ERB). He was paid these benefits until EI ERB ended. Then, his claim was moved to EI regular benefits.

[5] The Claimant’s regular benefits began on October 4, 2020. They ended on March 6, 2021, because he returned to work. After another job loss, he renewed his claim. He was paid benefits from June 27, 2021, until October 2, 2021, the date his benefit period ended.

[6] The Claimant qualified for a new benefit period starting on October 3, 2021. This is the benefit period in the appeal now before me. He was paid 27 weeks of regular benefits from October 3, 2021, until his weeks ran out on April 16, 2022.

[7] The Commission says the Claimant’s weeks of entitlement are based on his insurable hours and regional unemployment rate. It says this formula is fixed by law.

[8] The Claimant argues that he should have got 50 weeks of benefits, not 27 weeks, on his October 3, 2021, claim. He says his weeks should’ve been boosted by the 300-hour credit he saw posted on the government website. He says the Commission also used a regional unemployment rate that was too low.

[9] As well, the Claimant says the Commission should have told him to terminate his October 2020 claim and make a new initial claim on July 2, 2021. But that issue is not before me.

The issue I must decide

[10] How many weeks of benefits can the Claimant be paid for his claim starting on October 3, 2021?^{Footnote 1}

Analysis

[11] If you qualify, you can get EI benefits for each week of unemployment in your benefit period, up to the maximum number of weeks that the law allows.^{Footnote 2}

[11] The maximum number of weeks for regular benefits is calculated based on two factors. First, the number of hours of insurable employment that you worked during your qualifying period. Second, the unemployment rate at the start of your benefit period in the region where you live.^{Footnote 3}

[12] Benefits are paid for weeks of unemployment during your benefit period. You can only get benefits within this period. Generally, a benefit period is 52 weeks long.^{Footnote 4}

[13] When COVID first hit in March 2020, if you’d normally qualify for EI benefits, you were paid Emergency Response Benefits (EI-ERB). At the time, that was the only form of EI for claimants seeking regular benefits. EI ERB benefits were available from March 15, 2020, until October 3, 2020.^{Footnote 5}

[14] When EI-ERB ended, qualified claimants were moved to EI regular benefits.

[15] To make EI benefits more accessible for claimants in need, the government introduced several new temporary measures at various points during the pandemic. These measures were all time limited. This means that they only applied during certain periods. So, new temporary measures listed on the government website on any one date were not necessarily still valid if you applied for benefits at a later date.

[16] For example, for claims starting between September 27, 2020, and September 25, 2021, you could get up to a maximum of 50 weeks to cover the weeks in your benefit period when you were unemployed.

[17] As well, the first time you applied for regular benefits during the above time frame, a 300-hour credit was added to your hours of insurable employment.^{Footnote 6} You could not use this credit a second time or choose to save it for a later claim.

Background facts

[18] The Claimant applied for benefits on June 7, 2020, after he lost his job. He was paid 14 weeks until EI ERB ended. He was then moved to EI regular benefits. The Commission emailed the Claimant about this pending change.^{Footnote 7}

[19] The Claimant’s EI regular benefits began on October 4, 2020. His 22 weeks of benefits ended on March 6, 2021, because he returned to work. After another job loss, he renewed his claim.^{Footnote 8} He got 14 more weeks of regular benefits on that claim from June 27, 2021, until his 52-week benefit period ended on October 2, 2021.

[20] The Claimant qualified for another benefit period starting on October 3, 2021.  This is the benefit period before me. He was paid 27 weeks of benefits from October 3, 2021, until his benefits ran out on April 16, 2022.

[21] I find that I must clarify the Claimant’s description of his benefit history. He appears to see it as four “segments” of one continuous claim. But it was not just one claim.

[22] Based on the evidence, I assume that Segment 1 is the EI ERB he got after he lost his job in June 2020. Segment 2 is the first part of his EI regular benefits for his October 2020 claim until he returned to work. After he lost his job again, Segment 3 is the benefits he got by reactivating this claim on July 2, 2021. Segment 4 is the benefits he was paid for his October 2021 claim.

The Claimant’s arguments

[23] The Claimant hasn’t disputed such factors as the number of insurable hours he accrued, the length of a qualifying period or a benefit period, the region where he lives or the benefits he was paid. But he has three main arguments, as follows.

1. The Claimant says the Commission used the wrong unemployment rate for his region when calculating how many weeks of benefits he could get.^{Footnote 9} On appeal, he cited rates from 16.6% to 17.1% for his region.^{Footnote 10}
2. The Claimant says the 300-hour credit he saw online should have boosted his insurable hours and, therefore, his weeks of benefits.
3. The Claimant says he lost benefits because the Commission failed to advise him about his options. He says it should have told him to terminate his October 2020 claim and make a new claim on July 2, 2021.^{Footnote 11}

My findings

[24] Before calculating the number of weeks of benefits that the law allows, I considered Claimant’s above three arguments, as follows.

1. The Claimant submitted no evidence to support his argument that the Commission used the wrong unemployment rate. The rates he cited from 2020, did not apply to his claim starting on October 3, 2021.
2. The 300-hour credit couldn’t be used for the Claimant’s October 2021 claim since the credit only applied to a first claim between September 27, 2020, and September 25, 2021. The credit had been applied to his October 2020 claim, so he couldn’t have used it again on a new claim in July 2021 either.
3. I have no jurisdiction over whether terminating his October 2000 claim in July 2021 and making a new initial claim would have been better for the Claimant. The only issue before me is weeks of benefits for his claim in October 2021.

[25] So, the first factor in my calculation of the Claimant’s benefit weeks is his 694 insurable hours in the qualifying period that applies to his October 2021 claim.^{Footnote 12}

[26] The second factor is the 12.7% unemployment rate in his economic region (Eastern Nova Scotia) on the date his October 2021 claim began.^{Footnote 13}

[27] Considering these two factors together, I find that the Claimant was entitled to 27 weeks of regular benefits for this claim. So, the Commission’s calculation was correct.

[28] The calculation method cannot be changed. It is a fixed mathematical formula set out in the law.^{Footnote 14} I do not have the power to change the law.^{Footnote 15}

Final comments

[29] I acknowledge the Claimant’s frustration that I can’t consider whether his October 2020 claim should have been terminated on July 2, 2021, in favour of a new claim.

[30] I’m aware that I must take a broad approach to my jurisdiction to consider underlying concerns that may affect a reconsideration decision.^{Footnote 16}

[31] But the Commission only made a reconsideration decision on the Claimant’s weeks of benefits for a new initial claim starting on October 3, 2021. The word “termination” doesn’t appear in the reconsideration request, the Claimant’s subsequent conversation with the Commission to clarify his request,^{Footnote 17} or the decision itself.

[32] So, I don’t have any authority over the termination of his October 2000 claim.^{Footnote 18}

[33] The Claimant wants me to order the Commission to reconsider that issue. He says he shouldn’t have to make another reconsideration request. He says the Commission can change his claim using section 50(10) of the Employment Insurance Act (EI Act ).^{Footnote 19}

[34] But this section doesn’t apply in the Claimant’s circumstances. The Commission can only use it to relax requirements under section 50 of the EI Act. It can’t be used to waive the conditions of any other section of the EI Act.^{Footnote 20}

[35] The Clamant also argues that the Commission failed in its duty to give him the information he needed. He says it never explained his options so he could make an informed decision about his benefits on July 2, 2021. He says the Commission didn’t properly explain its reconsideration decision either in its letter dated June 17, 2022.

[36] The Claimant says he called the Commission before he decided to reactivate his October 2000 claim on July 2, 2021. Since this call is not documented in the Commission’s evidence, I cannot tell what questions he asked and how they were answered.

[37] But even if the Commission gave the Claimant incomplete or unclear information, this does not invalidate its reconsideration decision since that decision followed the law.^{Footnote 21}

[38] It is still open to the Claimant to submit another reconsideration request on termination of his October 2020 claim.

Conclusion

[39] The Claimant is entitled to 27 weeks of benefits for his claim beginning on October 3, 2021. This calculation follows the law and the regulations in place on that date. These factors cannot be changed.

[40] This explains why I must dismiss the Claimant’s appeal.