Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

[2] The issue under appeal is whether the Appellant is payable benefits for the periods of May 5 to May 24, 2016, and the week of June 5, 2016, and from July 28 to August 19, 2019.  The Commission framed the issue as a late request for reconsideration, but this is not what the Appellant is asking the Tribunal to decide.

[3] The Commission did not pay the Appellant any benefits for those periods, as he filed no initial claim at all for benefits in 2016, and no claim reports for the period in 2019. Claimants need to have established a benefit period and made claims before benefits can be paid.

[4] I do not have the power to decide whether benefits are payable to the Appellant for those periods.

Overview

[5] On October 6, 2022, the Commission received a letter from the Appellant. In the letter the Appellant stated that he felt he was payable benefits from May 5 to May 24, 2016, and the week of June 5, 2016 and from July 28 to August 19, 2019.

[6] The Commission decided that the Appellant was asking for a reconsideration of a letter they sent to him on July 12, 2019, about a claim he had which started on May 2018. They decided that they would not reconsider his May 2018 claim. They decided the Appellant’s reconsideration request was outside the 30-day time limit to request a reconsideration. While it is possible to get an extension of time to request a reconsideration, they decided that the Appellant’s explanation for the delay did not meet the requirements to allow for more time.

[7] The Appellant appealed to the Tribunal trying to find out why he was not paid benefits for those periods of time.

Matter I have to consider first

[8] There seems to be some confusion between the parties as to what is being appealed, so I must first decide what is the issue under appeal.

[9] The Commission has submitted that the issue before me is a late request for a reconsideration. They say the Appellant is disputing their July 12, 2019, decision.^{Footnote 1}

[10] I do not agree.

[11] I find that the actual issue the Appellant is appealing is whether he is payable benefits for the periods of May 5 to May 24, 2016, and the week of June 5, 2016, and from July 28 to August 19, 2019.

[12] I find that in the Appellant’s October 2022 letter to the Commission (the letter they view as a request for reconsideration),^{Footnote 2} and his notice of appeal,^{Footnote 3} he does not reference any specific decision of the Commission.

[13] He also testified at the hearing that what he is concerned about is the two periods of time May 5 to May 24, 2016, and the week of June 5, 2016, and from July 28 to August 19, 2019, where he did not get paid benefits. He feels he is eligible for those periods of time and does not know why he was not paid benefits for those periods.

[14] I find the letter dated July 12, 2019, which the Commission says the Appellant is appealing, does not deal with those issues at all, which further supports he is not asking for a reconsideration of that decision.

[15] Nothing in the letter speaks to a decision on Appellant’s eligibility for benefits for periods in 2016.

[16] The July 12, 2019, letter does state that the Appellant’s benefit period will run to September 7, 2019, but I find this is not a decision on the issue the Appellant has raised.

[17] First, the July 12, 2019, letter was created prior to the period the Appellant is claiming he was not paid benefits; it says nothing about him not being payable benefits from July 28 to August 19, 2019.

[18] Second, the letter says his benefit period ends September 7, 2019, which appears to suggest that the Appellant could have been payable benefits for July 28 to August 19, 2019, since that would still be within his benefit period.

[19] However, the Appellant says he was not paid benefits for this period and the Commission has not disputed it. There is nothing in the July 12, 2019, letter that indicates a decision on why he was not paid EI from July 28, 2019, to August 19, 2019.

[20] It is ultimately for an appellant to decide what they want to appeal to the Tribunal.  I can understand why the Commission has framed the issue in this way, but having listened to the Appellant at the hearing, I find the issue under appeal is whether he is payable benefits for the periods of May 5 to May 24, 2016, and the week of June 5, 2016, and from July 28 to August 19, 2019.

Issues

[21] Can I decide whether benefits are payable to the Appellant?

Analysis

Can I decide whether benefits are payable to the Appellant?

[22] While it is for appellants to decide what they want to appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal is limited in what issues it has the power to decide. The law gives the Tribunal the power to decide appeals of reconsideration decisions made by the Commission.^{Footnote 4}  If the Commission has not yet decided and then reconsidered something, then the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to decide it.

[23] I cannot decide whether benefits are payable to the Appellant for the periods of May 5 to May 24, 2016, the week of June 5, 2016, and July 28 to August 19, 2019, for the following reasons.

[24] I asked the Commission to provide information about whether the Appellant had been paid benefits for the periods above, and if not, why.

[25] The Commission said that the reason the Appellant was not paid benefits for the period of May 5 to May 24, 2016, and the week of June 5, 2016, was that he did not submit any claims for benefits in all of 2016.^{Footnote 5} In order to be payable benefits, a claimant has to make an initial claim in order to establish a benefit period, and then make claims for the weeks of unemployment that they want to be paid benefits.  The Commission explained that the Appellant did not do this for the 2016 periods in question.

[26] I accept that the Appellant did not file any initial claims for benefits in 2016, as the Commission sent copies of all the Appellant’s initial claim applications and there are none for 2016. This means that there were no initial decisions made—and as there were no initial decisions, there were also no reconsideration decisions.  As explained above, the Tribunal only has the power to hear appeals on matters that have first been decided and then reconsidered by the Commission.   

[27] The Commission said that the reason the Appellant was not paid benefits for the period of July 28 to August 19, 2019, was because he did not file any claimant reports for that period.^{Footnote 6}  So, in contrast to the 2016 periods above, while the Appellant did have a benefit period during this time, he did not make claims for benefits (that is, he did not submit any biweekly claim reports) for those particular weeks.

[28] I accept the Appellant did not file any claimant reports for the period of July 28, 2019, to August 19, 2019, as the Commission included copies of all the Appellant’s claimant reports and he did not file any claimant reports after July 27, 2019.^{Footnote 7}

[29] However, I cannot decide if benefits would be payable to the Appellant for the 2019 periods because there were no initial decisions made, which means there were also no reconsideration decisions made. The Tribunal only has the power to hear appeals on matters that have first been decided and then reconsidered by the Commission.

[30] However, the Appellant can, if he so chooses, contact the Commission to see whether he can make claims for the periods of time in question but this does not automatically mean he will be paid benefits. His reports will be considered late, and in order to have them accepted he must show “good cause”^{Footnote 8} for the entire period of the delay in filing his claimant reports.^{Footnote 9}

Conclusion

[31] The appeal is dismissed because I do not have the jurisdiction to decide whether the Appellant can be paid benefits for the weeks in question.