Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal disagrees with the Appellant.

[2] The Appellant hasn’t shown that he is entitled to additional weeks of Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits.

Overview

[3] The Appellant applied for EI regular benefits effective October 16, 2022. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that the Appellant was entitled to 36 weeks of EI benefits.

[4] I have to decide whether the Appellant is entitled to additional weeks of EI benefits.

[5] The Commission says that the Appellant accumulated 1820 hours during the qualifying period between October 17, 2021 and October 15, 2022.^{Footnote 1} It says this means the Appellant is only entitled to 36 weeks of EI benefits.

[6] The Appellant disagrees and says that no one told him that he would only receive benefits for 36 weeks and that he should be entitled to 50 weeks of benefits. He says that the Commission’s processes are poor, the system is unfair and that the government should be providing more support to him because he needs it.

Matter I have to consider first

The Appellant raised constitutional arguments at the hearing

[7] The Appellant raised constitutional arguments at the hearing. He said that the fact that a person in Nova Scotia could be entitled to more weeks of benefits than someone in Ontario goes against the Constitution. He also said that it was a violation of his Charter rights that the Commission forced him to wait 30 days for a reconsideration decision.

[8] The Appellant had not previously raised constitutional arguments in his appeal documents. I advised the Appellant that there was a process he needed to go through in order to raise constitutional arguments. I advised the Appellant that I was confined to the EI Act.

[9] I offered the Appellant an adjournment so he could try to argue those issues at a later date.

[10] The Appellant said he wanted to continue the hearing. He understood I could not make a finding with regard to his Constitutional and Charter challenges. Therefore, the hearing proceeded.

Issue

[11] Is the Appellant entitled to more weeks of EI benefits within this benefit period?

Analysis

[12] Not everyone who is laid off from work can receive EI benefits, and not everyone receives the same amount of benefits.^{Footnote 2} There is no question that the Appellant qualified for regular EI benefits when he was laid off from work. But the Appellant says he should qualify for more than 36 weeks of benefits. He has to prove that he is entitled to these additional benefits. The Appellant has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means that he has to show that it is more likely than not that he qualifies for more than 36 weeks of benefits.

Determining weeks of entitlement to EI benefits

[13] To determine the number of weeks of entitlement to regular EI benefits I must consider the following factors, based on the law that was in effect at the start of the claim.

• The Regional Rate of Unemployment (RRU) in the Appellant’s area
• The dates of the qualifying period
• The hours of insurable employment that fall within the qualifying period, and
• The maximum weeks of entitlement listed in the table in Schedule 1 of the EI Act

The Appellant qualifies for benefits

[14] To qualify, you need to have worked enough hours within a certain timeframe. This timeframe is called the “qualifying period.”^{Footnote 3}

[15] The number of hours depends on the unemployment rate in your region.^{Footnote 4}

[16] The Commission says that the Appellant accumulated 1820 hours during his qualifying period between October 17, 2021 to October 15, 2022. The Commission decided that the Appellant’s region was the Toronto region and the regional rate of unemployment at the time of the initial benefit period was 5.9%.

[17] This means that the Appellant is entitled to 36 weeks of regular EI benefits.^{Footnote 5}

The Appellant doesn’t agree with the Commission

[18] The Appellant agrees with the Commission’s decisions about the number of hours in his qualifying period, and which region and regional rate of unemployment apply to him. There is no evidence that makes me doubt the Commission’s decision in that regard.

[19] The Appellant says that the maximum weeks of entitlement is unfair. He says someone in Nova Scotia would get more weeks of entitlement because the RRU there is higher. He says that the Commission didn’t consider the increased cost of inflation and that the Appellant has a higher cost of living in Ontario. The Appellant also says that he was injured at his place of work and that employers are now discriminating against him because he has a limp, so he is struggling to find a job.

[20] The Appellant also raised issues that are beyond my jurisdiction to deal with:

1. a) That the Commission did not tell him he only had 36 weeks of benefits
2. b) That the Commission’s processes are unfair because they take too long
3. c) That Statistics Canada has violated his constitutional rights by not considering his individual circumstances
4. d) That it was unfair that he could not get WSIB loss of wages compensation at the same time as EI benefits
5. e) That he worked full-time during the pandemic at the airport and was forced to take a vaccine that had not been properly vetted and that this may have caused his current health problems
6. f) That Prime Minister Trudeau should be helping people in Canada before providing help to another country such as the Ukraine.
7. g) That the Appellant applied for a job with the government, and he has been in the pool of candidates for more than a year with no further information
8. h) That the Appellant applied for job with the Communication Security Establishment and that they have unfairly kept his information on file and are possibly now conducting surveillance on him and preventing him from getting a job.

[21] The Appellant’s main complaint is that the law itself is unfair. Unfortunately, the EI Act dictates the maximum number of weeks that may be paid in a benefit period. That maximum number of weeks is based solely on the RRU, and the number of insurable hours worked within a qualifying period.

[22] Only Parliament can change the law. I cannot decide whether the criteria Parliament has selected for determining the number of weeks of EI benefits is wisely chosen or not. I also cannot change the criteria based on the issues raised by the Appellant. The criteria used to determine weeks of entitlement are set out in the EI Act and I have no discretion to ignore the law.

So, is the Appellant entitled to more weeks of EI benefits?

[23] Based on the Appellant’s RRU of 5.9% and that the Appellant accumulated 1820 hours during his qualifying period, the Appellant is only b entitled to 36 weeks of regular EI benefits.

[24] EI is an insurance plan, and, like other insurance plans, you have to meet certain requirements to receive benefits.

[25] In this case, the Appellant met the requirement for 36 weeks of regular EI benefits, but not more. While I sympathize with the Appellant’s situation, I can’t change the law.^{Footnote 6}

Conclusion

[26] The Appellant isn’t entitled to more than 36 weeks of EI regular benefits.

[27] This means that the appeal is dismissed.