Summary of Issue: Eligibility To Benefits

Decision T2145.18 Full Text of Decision T2145.18

The claimant had applied for EI benefits. He was not paid because he refused to verify his identity and his SIN. The Commission instructed the claimant to attend an in-person interview in order to provide information. He was asked to complete a social insurance number [SIN] application, as his SIN was dormant. He was also asked to provide identification in person; it was noted that the date of birth on his application differed from the date of birth on his SIN. The claimant attended the interview but neither provided his identification nor proof of his residential address. The claimant also did not complete a SIN application. As a result, his claim for EI was incomplete and was cancelled. There was no SST decision rendered by either SST Appeal Division or General Division to judicially review at this point.The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Decision 76264 Full Text of Decision 76264

The Commission refused to pay the claimant benefits because he had zero hours of insurable employment during his qualifying period. The claimant left his insurable employment to pursue self-employment to supplement his retirement income. During that period he was a self-employed worker and therefore did not have insurable employment. The claimant is a new entrant or re-entrant subsection 7(3) 7(4) 7(5) of Employment Insurance Act needs 910 hours in a qualifying period. Moreover, an antedate request was refused since the claimant did not qualify for benefits on the date for which the antedate was requested. The appeal before the Umpire is dismissed.

Decision 77258 Full Text of Decision 77258

The claimant was in receipt of benefits and received 15 weeks of maternity and 35 weeks of parental benefits. The last week paid was on February 28, 2010. She applied for additional benefits, on December 11, 2009, for the official adoption of two children, age two and five. The Commission refused since it had already paid out the full amount of parental benefits and could find no insurable hours which would allow her to have additional benefits. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 77117 Full Text of Decision 77117

The claimant who had been self-employed did not meet the requirements of the law in order to qualify. Self-employment persons could enter an agreement as of January 31, 2010, but must wait 12 months before being able to file a claim for EI special benefits. Section 152.07(1)(i) stipulates that a self-employed person qualifies for benefits if $6000.00 was earned. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 76323 Full Text of Decision 76323

The claimant was denied benefits after the expiration of his benefit period. The claimant’s last day of work was February 15, 2008. He filed an application for benefits on March 27, 2008. At that time the claimant left for Iran and remained in Iran for nine months. He was not eligible to benefits during that period by reason of his absence from Canada. The claimant submitted a second application in December 2008. The Commission was required to consider the 52 week period prior to the date of the application in order to determine the insurable hours of the claimant. The claimant did not work between February 15, 2008 and December 2008 and has no insurable hours. The Act provides that in certain cases the benefit period may be extended to a maximum of 104 weeks. Unfortunately the claimant’s situation is not one where an extension may be granted. Subsection 10(2) of the Act determines the length of a benefit period. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the umpire.

Decision 76143 Full Text of Decision 76143

The claimant filed her claim on January 4, 2009.The Commission determined that the claimant could not receive regular benefits because of insufficient hours. According to the Commission, to be eligible to receive benefits, she required 665 hours of insurable employment between January 7, 2008 and January 2, 2009. Unfortunately, the claimant accumulated only 662 hours of insurable hours during the period. The claimant was eligible for sickness benefits which she received between January and April 2009. Her claim could not be extended for regular benefits after April 2009. The appeal is dismissed by the Umpire

Decision 76047 Full Text of Decision 76047

The claimant last worked January 25, 2008 and had not been employed since that time. The claimant received a severance package and then reactivated his claim on February 19, 2010. The Commission determined that the claimant’s qualifying period began on February 15, 2009 and ended on February 13, 2010. The claimant was not a new entrant or re-entrant and had failed to demonstrate that he qualified to receive benefits pursuant to sections 7 or 7.1 and 8 of the EI Act. The claimant needed 490 hours to qualify and had no insurable employment in his qualifying period. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire. .

Decision 75578 Full Text of Decision 75578

The Commission determined that the facts did not show that the claimant had been dismissed for misconduct and allowed the claim for Employment Insurance benefits. According to the employer, the claimant did not meet the requirements of the position. She was rude with people, and she was not able to do her job properly at the reception desk in the employer's motel. It was not until after the employer received the Commission's decision that it alleged that the claimant had done everything to get herself fired so she could receive Employment Insurance benefits. The appeal by the employer is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 74331 Full Text of Decision 74331

According to the Commission, the claimant is not eligible for extended benefits under the Pilot Project No. 14, “Career Transition Program” since he does not meet all of the criteria set out in the Regulations. During the 260 week period before the beginning of his benefits period which commenced on February 1, 2009, the claimant had received more than 36 weeks of E.I. benefits, and therefore did not qualify. The claimant does not base his appeal on legal grounds, but claims that persons with disabilities such as his should be eligible. The Board has no authority to amend the requirements of the legislation, neither does an Umpire. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.

Decision 72277 Full Text of Decision 72277

The claimant filed a benefit claim on September 25, 2008. He provided two Records of Employment, which indicate that he worked for one employer from February 2, 1998 to October 4, 2006, and for another company for a few periods from November 1, 2007 to August 22, 2008. He accumulated 56 hours of employment for that employer. The Commission refused to establish a benefit period because the claimant had not accumulated the required number of hours of insurable employment during the qualifying period, from September 23, 2007 to September 20, 2008. The claimant had only accumulated 56 hours of insurable employment during the qualifying period and, in accordance with section 7(3)(b) of the Employment Insurance Act, he had to have accumulated a minimum of 840 hours of insurable employment to be entitled to benefits. The appeal is dismissed.

Decision A0573.07 Full Text of Decision A0573.07

The claimant accumulated 974 insurable hours during his qualifying period from March 5, 2005 to March 5, 2006, which entitled him to 19 weeks of benefits. He argued that he had other hours that should have been included in his qualifying period. The Court held that the Commission is bound by section 8(1) of the EIA which clearly states that only hours within the 52 weeks period immediately before the beginning of a benefit period can be considered.

Decision A-0147.03 Full Text of Decision A-0147.03

The claimant was denied sickness benefits having accumulated no hours of insurable employment. The Court found that, in order to obtain EI benefits, claimants must meet the conditions of the plan under the Employment Insurance Act.

Decision 56356 Full Text of Decision 56356

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0147.03

Decision 23419 Full Text of Decision 23419

I obviously cannot subscribe to the view that, having paid into the scheme, one must be able to withdraw. The Act sets up certain benefits for persons in need who are available for employment and not necessarily for the purpose of giving benefits to those who have paid into it.

Decision 16993 Full Text of Decision 16993

As to claimant's contention that she should be entitled to UI having paid into the system, I would merely point out that payment of UI is not contingent only upon payment into the scheme but also upon fulfillment of certain conditions in the Act including proof of availability.

Decision 13323 Full Text of Decision 13323

Although collective agreement refers to UI entitlement, the details of these rights are not to be found in an agreement; Act and Regulations must be interpreted by the Commission, boards of referees, Umpires and the Court of Appeal.

Decision A-0178.86 Full Text of Decision A-0178.86

The establishement of a benefit period does not create a right to receive benefits. Other conditions must be met. The legislative amendments that occur during the benefit period must be taken into account. Leave to appeal denied by SC.

Decision 11814 Full Text of Decision 11814

Length of time during which premiums are made is not the basis of a right to relief. Many people pay into UI fund throughout their working life, are never unemployed and so never collect. No fire insurance paid if no fire.

Decision A-0541.85 Full Text of Decision A-0541.85

Features of UI Act and various conditions to fulfill examined.

Decision 10633 Full Text of Decision 10633

Refer to: A-0541.85