Employment Insurance (EI)
Decision Information
The Claimant applied for EI benefits and his claim was antedated to start on December 18, 2022. The Appellant said he should get more than 15 weeks of benefits because he worked over 700 hours. He believed the Commission miscalculated his hours. However, the Commission determined that he had 692 insurable hours in his qualifying period and that he could only receive 15 weeks of benefits. The Claimant disagreed and appealed the Commission’s reconsideration decision.
The General Division reviewed the evidence and said that the Commission had correctly calculated the Claimant’s insurable hours in his qualifying period. It found that the Claimant could not get more than 15 weeks of EI benefits and dismissed his appeal. The Claimant appealed the General Division’s decision.
The Appeal Division held a case conference that turned into a settlement conference. The Parties agreed that the General Division made a jurisdictional error by deciding the Claimant’s insurable hours and that the Appeal Division should fix that error by sending the case back to the General Division to reconsider. Sections 90 and 90.1 of the Employment Insurance Act (EI Act) give the CRA the exclusive power to decide insurable hours. The Appeal Division agreed.
The Appeal Division said that when the Parties disagree about insurable hours, the Commission usually asks the CRA for a ruling or the General Division asks the Commission to get a CRA ruling. The law gives the CRA the exclusive authority to decide a claimant’s insurable hours. The Appeal Division determined that the General Division decided an issue it had no power to decide when it found the Claimant had 692 insurable hours. In other words, it made a jurisdictional error. To fix this error, the Appeal Division sent the Claimant’s case back to the General Division for reconsideration.
The Claimant’s appeal was allowed based on the Parties’ agreement.
Decision Content
Citation: AE v Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2025 SST 1065
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Appeal Division
Decision
| Appellant: | A. E. |
| Respondent: | Canada Employment Insurance Commission |
| Representative: | Adam Forsyth |
| Decision under appeal: | General Division decision dated July 11, 2025 (GE-25-1391) |
| Tribunal member: | Glenn Betteridge |
| Decision date: | October 1, 2025 |
| File number: | AD-25-582 |
On this page
Decision
[1] The appeal is allowed by agreement of A. E. and the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, which I have accepted.
[2] The case goes back to the General Division to reconsider.
Background
[3] A. E. is the Claimant.
[4] The Claimant and the Canda Employment Insurance Commission (together, the Parties) disagreed on the number of insurable hours he worked in his qualifying period. I’ll call this “insurable hours.”
[5] The Commission didn’t ask the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for a ruling about his insurable hours.
[6] The General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal. It looked at the evidence and decided he worked 692 insurable hours. This meant he was only entitled to 15 weeks of benefits, which the Commission had paid him.
[7] I gave the Claimant permission to appeal.
The parties agree on the outcome of the appeal
[8] On October 1, 2025, I held a case conference that turned into a settlement conference. The Parties agreed to settle the appeal on these terms:
- The General Division made a jurisdictional error by deciding the Claimant’s insurable hours—even though the Parties disagreed on this and sections 90 and 90.1 of the Employment Insurance Act (EI Act) give the CRA the exclusive power to decide insurable hours.Footnote 1
- The Appeal Division should fix that error by sending the case back to the General Division to reconsider.
I accept the agreement because the law and evidence support it
[9] When the Parties disagree about insurable hours, the Commission usually asks the CRA for a ruling.Footnote 2 Or the General Division can ask the Commission to get a CRA ruling.Footnote 3
[10] Unfortunately, in this case the Commission didn’t get a CRA ruling.
[11] But that didn’t give the General Division the power to decide the Claimant’s insurable hours. The law gives the CRA the exclusive authority to do that when the Commission and a claimant disagree.Footnote 4
[12] So, the General Division decided an issue it had no power to decide when it found the Claimant had 692 insurable hours. In other words, it made a jurisdictional error.
[13] To fix this error, I’m sending the Claimant’s case back to the General Division to reconsider.
Next steps
[14] The Claimant wants to send new evidence and a written explanation about his insurable hours. When the General Division opens a new file, he can send that information to the Tribunal. The Commission said he can also upload that information to his My Service Canada account.
[15] The Commission said it would wait for the Claimant’s new evidence and explanation before asking the CRA for a ruling. Then the Commission will send the CRA that new evidence, the written explanation, and the earnings-related evidence from General Division file GE-25-1391.
Conclusion
[16] I’m allowing the Claimant’s appeal based on the Parties’ agreement. I’m sending the case back to the General Division to reconsider.
[17] I want to thank the Parties for agreeing to settle this appeal.