Citation: HR v Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2023 SST 998
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
General Division – Employment Insurance Section
Decision
| Appellant: | H. R. |
| Respondent: | Canada Employment Insurance Commission |
| Decision under appeal: | Canada Employment Insurance Commission reconsideration decision (548370) dated December 22, 2022 (issued by Service Canada) |
| Tribunal member: | Teresa M. Day |
| Type of hearing: | Teleconference |
| Hearing date: | May 16, 2023 |
| Hearing participant: | Appellant |
| Decision date: | May 19, 2023 |
| File number: | GE-23-51 |
On this page
Decision
[1] The appeal is dismissed.
[2] The Appellant does not have enough hours of insurable employment during his qualifying period to establish a claim for employment insurance (EI) benefits.
[3] I do not have jurisdiction to override the qualifying requirements in the Employment Insurance Act (EI Act).
Overview
[4] The Appellant applied for regular EI benefits on August 22, 2022. To qualify for EI benefits on his claim, he needs 420 hours of insurable employmentFootnote 1 during his qualifying periodFootnote 2. He only had 379 hours, so the Respondent (Commission) decided he did not qualify for EI benefitsFootnote 3.
[5] The Appellant asked the Commission to reconsider its decision. He said his Record of Employment (ROE) was wrong. He also said that, according to his pay stubs, he had worked 436 hours – which was enough to qualify for EI benefitsFootnote 4.
[6] The Commission asked Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for a ruling on the insurable hours and earnings the Appellant had. It provided CRA with the information that had been supplied by both the Appellant and the employer. According to CRA’s insurability ruling, the Appellant had 338 hours of insurable employmentFootnote 5. So the Commission maintained its decision that he did not qualify for EI benefits.
[7] The Appellant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal).
Issue
[8] I must decide if the Appellant has enough hours of insurable employment to qualify for EI benefits on the application he filed on August 22, 2022.
Analysis
[9] The Government of Canada enacted various temporary emergency measures that amended the EI Act to address some of the challenges Canadians faced during the global Covid-19 pandemic.
[10] One of those challenges was working enough hours of insurable employment to meet the qualifying requirements to receive EI benefits. To address this particular problem, the Government of Canada temporarily modified the qualifying requirements.
[11] For initial claims for EI benefits that started between September 26, 2021 and September 18, 2022, claimants only needed 420 hours of insurable employment in their qualifying period to establish a claim for regular EI benefitsFootnote 6.
[12] Since the Appellant’s new claim would have started as of August 15, 2022Footnote 7, this temporary emergency measure applied to his claim.
[13] The Appellant needs 420 hours to qualify for EI benefits, but he only has 338 hours. This means he does not qualify for EI benefits on his claim.
[14] The Appellant testified that:
- He worked at the restaurant between April and August 2022.
- The employer has not accurately reported his hours.
- There are issues around his termination, and he has filed a human rights complaint against the employer (set out in his Notice of Appeal). These issues have “muddled” the hours he actually worked.
- He believes he worked approximately 100 additional hours that were not reported and have not been accounted for.
- His pay stubs show he worked 436 hours.
- He had no other employment during his qualifying period.
- He wants me to disregard CRA’s insurability ruling and go by his calculations, which show he has enough hours to qualify for EI benefits.
[15] I asked the Appellant if he appealed CRA’s insurability ruling. He wasn’t sure whether he had done that or simply appealed to the Tribunal. I gave him until the end of the day on the day of the hearing (May 16, 2022) to file proof with the Tribunal that he had appealed the insurability ruling according to the directions set out in the ruling itselfFootnote 8.
[16] Nothing further has been received from the Appellant.
[17] CRA’s insurability ruling is binding on meFootnote 9. I cannot decide that the number of hours is different. In the absence of any evidence the Appellant took steps to appeal the insurability ruling, it is final and applies to his claim.
[18] I do not have discretion to disregard or override the qualifying requirements in the EI Act.
[19] The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed this principle when it considered a case like the Appellant’s, but where the claimant was short only one (1) hour of meeting the qualifying requirementsFootnote 10. In that case, the court said the requirements set out in the EI Act are not within the discretion of the decision maker to vary – even if a claimant is short only one (1) hour of meeting the qualifying conditions.
[20] The Supreme Court of Canada has said I do not have jurisdiction to grant the equitable relief the Appellant is asking forFootnote 11. This means I cannot make an exception for him, no matter how difficult or compelling his circumstances may beFootnote 12.
[21] The Appellant requires 420 hours of insurable employment in his qualifying period to establish a new initial claim for EI benefits on the application he filed on August 22, 2022. I cannot alter or waive this requirement.
[22] He only has 338 hours.
[23] This means he has not satisfied the requirements to qualify for EI benefits and, therefore, cannot establish his claim.
Conclusion
[24] The appeal is dismissed.
[25] The Appellant does not have enough hours of insurable employment to qualify for EI benefits. This means he cannot establish a claim or be paid the EI benefits he asked for.