Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

Overview

[2] The Appellant (Claimant) worked for the employer until April 2, 2020. On April 10, 2020, he made an initial claim for sickness benefits. His claim was established effective April 4, 2020. He went back to work on April 19, 2020.

[3] On September 16, 2020, the Claimant claimed EI work-sharing benefits. The Respondent (Commission) later cancelled the claim because of the active EI ERB claim. Then, on December 1, 2020, it told the Claimant that he was no longer eligible for the EI-ERB, but a claim for EI work-sharing benefits was to be established. The Claimant appealed to the General Division.

[4] The General Division found that the Claimant wasn’t eligible for the EI-ERB after August 30, 2020, since he received earnings and should have been receiving EI work-sharing benefits.

[5] The Appeal Division granted the Claimant leave to appeal. He submits that he did not apply for EI-ERB in August 2020, after the work-sharing benefits agreement started. He only applied for EI-ERB in April 2020.

[6] I must decide whether the General Division made an error when it concluded that the Claimant wasn’t eligible for the EI-ERB since he had received earnings and should have been receiving EI work-sharing benefits.

[7] I am dismissing the Claimant’s appeal.

Issue

[8] Did the General Division make an error when it concluded that the Claimant wasn’t eligible for the EI-ERB since he received earnings and should have been receiving EI work-sharing benefits?

Analysis

Appeal Division’s mandate

[9] The Federal Court of Appeal has determined that when the Appeal Division hears appeals pursuant to section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act, the mandate of the Appeal Division is conferred to it by sections 55 to 69 of that Act.^{Footnote 1}.

[10] The Appeal Division acts as an administrative appeal tribunal for decisions rendered by the General Division and does not exercise a superintending power similar to that exercised by a higher court.^{Footnote 2}.

[11] Therefore, unless the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice, erred in law, based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it, the Tribunal must dismiss the appeal.

Did the General Division make an error when it concluded that the Claimant wasn’t eligible for the EI-ERB since he received earnings and should have been receiving EI work-sharing benefits?

[12] The Claimant agrees that he cannot receive EI-ERB starting from August 30, 2020, because his employer implemented a work-sharing agreement from that date.

[13] The Claimant says that he did not even apply for EI-ERB in September 2020. He applied for EI based on the work-sharing agreement.

[14] During the hearing, it became clear to me that what the Claimant is really contesting is the $2,000 overpayment of EI-ERB following his April 2020 claim.

[15] I explained to the Claimant that this is not the issue that the General Division had to deal with. The overpayment issue the Claimant is raising has not been reconsidered by the Commission and is not part of this appeal.

[16] For the above-mentioned reasons, I find that the General Division correctly applied the law when it concluded that the Claimant wasn’t eligible for the EI-ERB starting August 30, 2020, since he was part of a work sharing agreement from that date.

Conclusion

[17] The appeal is dismissed.

[18] I recommend that the Commission promptly address the issue of the Claimant’s $2,000 overpayment of EI-ERB following his April 2020 claim.