Claimant Allowed to Receive EI Benefits Despite Temporary Absence

Citation: Canada Employment Insurance Commission  v  EH , 2026  [NAME]  222 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: C. S. Decision under appeal: General Division December 2, 2025 (GE-25-3144) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: April 2, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant’s representative Respondent Respondent’s representative Decision date: June 1, 2026 File number: AD-25-809 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. The General Division made an error of law when it didn’t provide reasons that allowed its decision to be understood. [ 2 ] I have given the decision the General Division should have given. The Claimant is not disentitled to Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) benefits on June 16, 2025, and on June 20, 2025, because she wasn’t outside Canada for complete 24-hour periods. The Claimant is disentitled to [NAME] from June 17, 2025, to June 19, 2025, because she was outside Canada for consecutive 24-hour periods during those days. An exception under section 55(6) of the [NAME] doesn’t apply. Overview [ 3 ] E. H. is the Claimant. She’s the Respondent in this appeal. She applied for [NAME] regular benefits. She qualified for [NAME] and received regular benefits. [ 4 ] The Claimant reported that she was out of Canada from June 16, 2025, to June 20, 2025. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) disentitled the Claimant to benefits for that week because it decided she was out of Canada and not available for work. [ 5 ] The Claimant appealed the Commission’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. The General Division decided that even though the Claimant was out of Canada, she met an exception to disentitlement in the [NAME]. Specifically, it decided that she was residing temporarily or permanently in a state of the United States that is contiguous to Canada. The General Division found the Claimant was also available for work. [ 6 ] The Commission appealed the General Division’s decision. It didn’t dispute the finding that the Claimant remained available for work. But it said the Claimant didn’t meet any [NAME] exceptions that would remove the out of Canada disentitlement. [ 7 ] I have found the General Division made an error of law when it decided the Claimant temporarily resides in a state that is contiguous to Canada. Issue [ 8 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Did the General Division make an error of law when it said the Claimant was residing outside Canada temporarily in a state of the United States that is contiguous to Canada? b) If so, how should the error be fixed? Analysis [ 9 ] I can only intervene if the General Division made an error. There are only certain errors I can consider. Briefly, I can intervene if the General Division made at least one of the following errors: Footnote 1 It acted unfairly in some way. It decided an issue it shouldn’t have, or didn’t decide an issue it should have. This is also called an error of jurisdiction. It made an error of law. It based its decision on an important error of fact. The General Division made an error of law when it didn’t give reasons about its decision that the Claimant was residing outside Canada temporarily in a state of the United States that is contiguous to Canada [ 10 ] The basic facts aren’t in dispute. The Claimant is married. Her husband lives in Seattle, Washington, in the United States. It isn’t disputed that the state is contiguous to Canada. The Claimant lives in Surrey, British Columbia. The Claimant didn’t pass one of her medical board exams and then lost her job placement. She applied for Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) benefits and a benefit period was established on May 11, 2025. [ 11 ] On June 16, 2025, the Claimant left Canada and went to Seattle to stay with her husband. The Claimant returned to Canada on June 20, 2025. [ 12 ] The General Division decided the Claimant had shown she was available during the week of June 16, 2025, to June 20, 2025. The Commission has accepted this part of the General Division’s decision. Footnote 2 It isn’t appealing that decision. [ 13 ] In [NAME] , the Federal Court of Appeal ( FCA ) said that disentitlements from being outside Canada are calculated in terms of whole days. Footnote 3 The whole day doesn’t have to be a calendar day. Instead, it is a 24-hour period that could straddle two calendar days. So, a “day” outside Canada doesn’t have to match a full calendar day, it only has to be a continuous 24-hour period. [NAME] to this case, both the Commission and the Claimant agreed that the Claimant shouldn’t be disentitled from receiving benefits on June 16, 2025, and on June 20, 2025. Footnote 4 [ 14 ] But the Commission argues the Claimant is disentitled to receive [NAME] from June 17, 2025, to June 19, 2025, because she was outside Canada for the full 24-hour periods on those days. [ 15 ] Section 37 of the [NAME] Act says that if you’re outside Canada, you aren’t entitled to [NAME]. Section 55 of the [NAME] provides exceptions when [NAME] might not be disentitled to [NAME] even though they were outside Canada. [ 16 ] In this case, the Claimant is arguing that section 55(6)(a) of the [NAME] applies to her. This subsection provides that a claimant who resides outside Canada isn’t disentitled from benefits solely on that basis, provided the claimant resides temporarily or permanently in a state of the United States that is contiguous to Canada. The parties agree that the Claimant travelled from her residence to a state that is contiguous to Canada. [ 17 ] The General Division acknowledged there is no binding case law that examines what resides outside Canada temporarily in a contiguous state of the United States means. Footnote 5 But instead of grappling with what “resides temporarily or permanently” means and explaining that decision, the General Division moved directly to the conclusion that the Claimant was temporarily residing in the United States as contemplated by section 55(6) of the [NAME] Act. Footnote 6 This means the General Division didn’t provide adequate reasons for its decision. Remedy [ 18 ] I have found an error. There are two main ways I can remedy (fix) it. I can make the decision the General Division should have made. I can also send the case to the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal for a new first-level hearing. Footnote 7 [ 19 ] The parties agreed they had an opportunity to present all their evidence to the General Division. They both said if I found an error I should give the decision that the General Division should have given. I agree. Available [ 20 ] I am adopting the General Division’s decision about the Claimant showing she remained available while outside Canada. Both parties agreed with the General Division’s decision in this regard. That isn’t enough to decide the case. There is still a live issue with respect to whether the Claimant can receive [NAME] when she was outside Canada. The Claimant wasn’t residing outside Canada temporarily or permanently in a state of the United States as contemplated by the Employment Insurance Regulations [ 21 ] As I explained above, the general rule is when you’re outside Canada you can’t receive [NAME] unless you fall under one of the exceptions. [ 22 ] There is an exception for claimants who reside outside Canada in a state of the United States that is contiguous to Canada. Section 55(6) provides that a claimant is not disentitled to [NAME] solely because they reside, temporarily or permanently, in such a state. [ 23 ] The terms resides outside Canada and resides temporarily in a state that is contiguous to Canada aren’t defined in the [NAME] Act or the [NAME]. So, I will consider what these mean. The provision must be read in light of its text, context, and purpose, so I will examine each of these elements below. Footnote 8 The text [ 24 ] At the outset, I am reproducing the entire provision here.

6) Subject to subsection (7), a claimant who is not a self-employed person and who resides outside Canada, other than a major attachment claimant referred to in subsection (5), is not disentitled from receiving benefits for the sole reason of their residence outside Canada if (a) the claimant resides temporarily or permanently in a state of the United States that is contiguous to Canada and (i) is available for work in Canada, and (ii) is able to report personally at an office of the Commission in Canada and does so when requested by the Commission; or (b) the claimant is qualified to receive benefits under Article VI of the Agreement between Canada and the United States respecting Unemployment Insurance, signed on March 6 and 12, 1942, and resides temporarily or permanently in one of the following places in respect of which the Commission has not, pursuant to section 16 of the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, suspended the application of that Agreement, namely, (i) the District of Columbia, (ii) Puerto Rico, (iii) the Virgin Islands, or (iv) any state of the United States. [ 25 ] It is important to note that section 55(6)(a) and section 55(6)(b) are two separate exceptions. The issue I have to decide is about section 55(6)(a). [ 26 ] The provision applies to [NAME] who resides outside Canada. It says [NAME] won’t be disentitled to [NAME] for the sole reason that they reside outside Canada, temporarily or permanently, in a state of the United States that is contiguous to Canada. Resides outside Canada [ 27 ] [NAME], under their simple dictionary, defines “reside” as “to live in a particular place”. Footnote 9 As an intransitive verb, [NAME] defines it as, a: to dwell permanently or continuously: occupy a place as one’s legal domicile b: to be in residence as the incumbent of a benefice or office c: to be located or stationed Footnote 10 [ 28 ] Since “resides” isn’t defined by the [NAME] Act or Regulations, I have to start by looking at the ordinary meaning of the words that Parliament chose. The dictionary definition shows that residing is something more than just visiting a location. [ 29 ] Being outside Canada is clear to understand. But what does it mean to reside outside Canada? Reside, in this context, is about living outside Canada in a place of residence or a home. [ 30 ] According to the dictionary, to reside somewhere, means having some type of settled presence or living arrangement. So, resides outside Canada means a person is doing something beyond just visiting, travelling, or being temporarily outside Canada. Resides outside Canada requires more. A short-term presence somewhere isn’t enough. There must be some type of actual living arrangements. [ 31 ] The Claimant says because her husband is a US citizen and he resides in the United States it means, by extension, that she also resides in the United States. The Claimant’s argument is substantially different from what she testified to at the General Division. Before the General Division, she said there was no family home. Rather, she had her home and her husband had his. Resides temporarily or permanently in a state of the United States that is contiguous to Canada [ 32 ] The FCA considered section 55(6) of the [NAME]. Unfortunately, the FCA didn’t define what resides, or resides temporarily, mean. But it said that working for 10 days in Florida wasn’t enough to equal a temporary residence. Footnote 11 This supports the idea that simply being in a location isn’t enough to be residing, even temporarily. [ 33 ] The FCA case is binding, but I’m also going to look at cases that aren’t binding on me. In 2018, the Tribunal’s Appeal Division looked at section 55(6)(b) of the [NAME]. [ 34 ] In that case, the applicant lived in Alberta and had a vacation rental property in Arizona. The Appeal Division found the applicant wasn’t entitled to any benefits while he was in Arizona. The Appeal Division said, [ 22 ] Furthermore, paragraph 55(6)( b ) requires that the Claimant reside temporarily or permanently in a state of the United States. [ 23 ] Although the term “residence” is not defined in the legislation, according to case law, the term refers to a place in which a claimant has settled and ordinarily resides. The definition of “residence” found in the second edition of  Black’s Law Dictionary  refers to “Living or dwelling in a certain place permanently or for a considerable length of time.” Footnote 12 [ 35 ] This confirms the notion that a person has to establish some type of ordinary residence or connection. [ 36 ] I will also look at some Canada Umpire Benefit (CUB) decisions. These cases considered a predecessor section that had similar language to section 55(6) of the [NAME]. In one case, the applicant was collecting employment insurance and went to the United States to look for work. The Umpire said, The operative words in both sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) are “resides temporarily or permanently”. There is no way that a reasonable interpretation of residence even qualified by the word “temporary” can include brief stays in a motel, hotel, or other accommodation without any abandonment of regular residence in Canada, even though his search for work was in a contiguous state (Washington) and California (not contiguous). Footnote 13 [ 37 ] This supports that brief stays somewhere else aren’t enough to rise to the level of resides temporarily. [ 38 ] In a different CUB decision, whether a residence was temporary or not was considered. The Umpire said, The claimant informed me that he was residing in the home of his parents while he was in the United States. That the address of his parents is his mailing address in the United States and that as far as he is concerned, he has two residences, his parents’ home in the United States and his own residence in Quebec. I am satisfied that the residence of the claimant’s parents is his temporary residence in the United States. Regulation 54(1) speaks of having a temporary or permanent residence. In this case, the claimant had, at least, a temporary residence in the United States for the three weeks that he was in the United States searching for work. Footnote 14 [ 39 ] In that case, the applicant was legally able to live and work in the United States. Furthermore, he considered both his parents and his own place, in Canada, to be residences. He also used his parents’ address as his own mailing address. The Umpire accepted, for the three weeks in question, that the claimant had a temporary residence at his parent’s home. This case suggests that residing at a parents’ home, using that address as a mailing address, and being legally able to live and work in the United States, were together enough to rise to the level of resides temporarily outside Canada. [ 40 ] I am not bound by CUB decisions. But I find the cases noted above to be persuasive and helpful. [ 41 ] As previously noted, the [NAME] Act doesn’t define what resides means. There also isn’t a definition of what a resides temporarily is. The Supreme Court of Canada ( SCC ) considered what ordinary residence meant within the income tax context. Although it is a different context, I find it is still instructive. The SCC majority said, Ordinary residence can best be appreciated by considering its antithesis, occasional or casual or deviatory residence. The latter would seem clearly to be not only temporary in time and exceptional in circumstance, but also accompanied by sense of transitoriness and of return. But in the different situations of so-called “permanent residence”, “temporary residence”, “ordinary residence”, “principal residence” and the like, the adjectives do not affect the fact that there is in all cases residence; and that quality is chiefly a matter of the degree to which a person in mind and fact settles into or maintains or centralizes his ordinary mode of living with its accessories in social relations, interests and conveniences at or in the place in question. It may be limited in time from the outset, or it may be indefinite, or so far as it is thought of, unlimited. On the lower level, the expressions involving residence should be distinguished, as I think they are in ordinary speech, from the field of “stay” or “visit”. Footnote 15 [ 42 ] The SCC in [NAME] establishes that residence involves both a connection to the place and regular, day-to-day living. So, factors such as [NAME]’s ties to the community, their ordinary day-to-day life in the temporary residence, and any other relevant factors should be considered. [ 43 ] The cases suggest that “resides temporarily” needs something more than a visit. I am persuaded by the SCC when it said the duration of the stay is secondary to the quality of the connection to the location. How much [NAME] is settled into the “ordinary mode of living” can be taken to mean the person is carrying on ordinary daily activities. [ 44 ] There isn’t just one way to demonstrate where [NAME] resides. A person could show they reside in a place in different ways. While having a spouse in a particular location supports a connection to that place, it isn’t enough on its own to establish that a person resides there. The plain meaning of the word “reside” suggests more than just a simple connection. It means the person is actually living in a place, even if only temporarily. [ 45 ] Section 55(6) specifically notes a claimant can reside “temporarily or permanently”. This suggests there was a spectrum that the [NAME] intended to include. But the spectrum still requires “resides”. [ 46 ] So, [NAME] who resides outside Canada must establish something more than just visiting. I don’t exclude the possibility that [NAME] can have more than one residence. But the person would have to show that the place they are residing outside Canada is a place where they do their day-to-day living. There must be some type of settled presence or the person treating the location like their home during the period they are there. [ 47 ] Taken together, these cases, along with the plain meaning of the words “resides temporarily”, become clearer. The predecessor cases draw a line between simply having a physical presence in the United States versus resides temporarily there. [ 48 ] Resides outside Canada temporarily or permanently is different from an occasional or casual place one visits. The first part of section 55(6) speaks to [NAME] having their residence outside Canada. It then says the person isn’t disentitled to receive [NAME] for the only reason that they reside temporarily or permanently in a state of the United States that is contiguous to Canada. [ 49 ] The wording of the provision, and the case law, clarify [NAME] must truly reside there even though it might only be temporary. The [NAME] chose the words “resides” outside Canada and “resides” temporarily or permanently in a state contiguous to Canada. As noted above, reside, in its ordinary meaning, is that [NAME] has a degree of settled presence in a location. [ 50 ] Carrying on a day-to-day life at the location is important versus being somewhere for a brief visit. Some examples of things that might show a day-to-day life are: sleeping at the location regularly, receiving mail or using the address as your own, accessing local services (e.g., banking, utilities, medical or pharmacy), establishing a routine in the location, engaging in hobbies in the local area. Being married to a person that lives in a contiguous state could also be one factor, but it isn’t enough on its own. This is a non-exhaustive list of the types of factors that, taken together, could show that a person was carrying on a day-to-day life in the location. [ 51 ] One factor alone is also likely not enough to establish that [NAME] is carrying on a day-to-day life. A short-term presence somewhere isn’t enough. There must be some type of actual living arrangements. The context [ 52 ] The context must begin by remembering the larger statutory scheme. Section 37 of the [NAME] Act provides that, unless otherwise prescribed, a claimant is not entitled to benefits while outside Canada. Those prescribed exceptions are set out in section 55 of the [NAME]. The exceptions are exhaustive and signal a deliberate legislative choice. [ 53 ] This makes sense. The purpose of employment insurance is designed to temporarily support those in the Canadian labour market who find themselves temporarily unemployed. Parliament took a strict approach to employment insurance benefits and those outside Canada. Footnote 16 The [NAME] Act says if you’re outside Canada you can’t receive [NAME] unless you meet a prescribed exception. [ 54 ] The exhaustive prescribed exceptions are narrow and tied to specific circumstances that [NAME] decided to include. Footnote 17 The prescribed exceptions in section 55 of the [NAME] must not undermine the general rule explained in section 37 of the [NAME] Act. [ 55 ] The context of section 55(6) suggests [NAME] intended to provide coverage for a different type of claimant. Specifically, [NAME] who is ordinarily resident in a bordering state of the United States. The Commission argued that this is reflected in a typical application of this section where a claimant lives in the United States in a state contiguous to Canada, but works in Canada. The purpose [ 56 ] The [NAME] explain the purpose of this exception. The purpose of the exception in section 55(6) is for a specified group of claimants. It is designed for those claimants that have established they reside temporarily or permanently in the United States but are connected to the Canadian workforce. Harmonizing [ 57 ] Section 55(6) of the [NAME] is a specific exception to the general rule contained in Section 37 of the [NAME] Act. Section 55(6) focusses on residing, versus something more transient. The ordinary meaning of the term resides, and what that means in light of the context and purpose, is to have some type of settled presence in a contiguous state to Canada in the form of day-to-day living. [ 58 ] The exception addresses those who have established actual living arrangements in the United States. Parliament specifically chose the words “resides outside Canada”. It then elaborated that [NAME] isn’t disentitled for the sole reason of their residence outside Canada if the person “resides temporarily or permanently” in a state of the USA contiguous to Canada. This distinguishes those who are travelling or visiting. This means there should be some type of meaningful residential connection. The provision considers that the residing connection may be temporary. [ 59 ] The Commission gave an example of a common situation when this section is used. Take, for example, a person who works in Windsor, Ontario, but lives in Detroit, Michigan. That person loses their job. They reside in a state of the United States that is contiguous to Canada. This is certainly one type of situation this provision captures. The person was working in Canada and paying into the [NAME] system. The law recognizes that the person temporarily or permanent residing outside Canada shouldn’t be the only barrier to receiving [NAME]. Application of the provision to this case [ 60 ] When the text, context, and purpose of the provision are considered, along with the preceding case law, it is clear that resides temporarily is something more than just somewhere you visit. So, I have to look at all the factors that are present in this case. [ 61 ] The Claimant argues that her marriage to an American, on its own, is sufficient to establish that his residence was also hers. She feels her marriage alone should satisfy the exception in section 55(6). [ 62 ] The Claimant says I should only consider that she’s legally married to her husband and her husband has a residence in the United States. Therefore, his residence is a temporary residence for her. If I accept what the Claimant is arguing, it suggests that there should be a presumption in the law. A presumption is when the proof of one fact is taken as evidence of another fact. The presumption being that if you’re married, and the spouse lives in a state contiguous to Canada, that you should automatically come within the exception under section 55(6). [ 63 ] Respectfully, I disagree. Previous case law that examined the meaning of “resides” also explain it’s important to consider subjective and objective factors when considering if a location is [NAME]’s residence in the law. Footnote 18 I find these decisions persuasive. So, the single factor of being married shouldn’t be enough to trigger the application of this provision. There needs to be a true analysis of each case on its own facts. [ 64 ] The Commission says the Claimant lived her ordinary life in Surrey, British Columbia. It pointed out the Claimant’s husband usually travelled to British Columbia. It argued the Claimant didn’t reside temporarily in Seattle. It says it is more accurate to describe what the Claimant did as visiting. [ 65 ] The Claimant argues that I should find she was residing temporarily in Seattle because she’s married to the person living there. I don’t accept that marriage alone creates a presumption of residing temporarily. The fact that the Claimant and her husband are legally married is something I can consider. However, that fact alone doesn’t decide the issue. [ 66 ] The cases I reviewed show there has to be some connection to the residence. For example, CUB 12206, where the son was temporarily residing with his parents. He said he considered that he had two residences. He used his parents’ address as his mailing address. He was also legally able to work and reside in the United States. The case accepted that the son had a connection to the residence where he was residing temporarily. [ 67 ] At the General Division hearing, the Claimant and her husband didn’t describe any meaningful connection between the Claimant and the Seattle residence other than that her husband lived there. There was no indication that she lived any of her day-to-day life there or treated the Seattle home as a regular place of living. [ 68 ] The only factor present is that the Claimant’s husband lives in Seattle. As noted above, marriage is just one factor and doesn’t create a legal presumption. There must be something more connecting a person to a residence. [ 69 ] The Claimant testified that she doesn’t have the legal right to live or work permanently in the United States and can only enter as a visitor. Footnote 19 The evidence shows she rarely travelled to Seattle. Footnote 20 Her husband testified that he usually drives to see the Claimant each weekend. He testified that the Claimant only visited him in Seattle on this occasion because he was working and she wasn’t. [ 70 ] At the Appeal Division hearing, the Claimant argued that, as a matter of common sense, a wife who stays with her husband is residing in the family home. Yet, this is contradictory to her testimony under oath to the General Division. The Claimant testified at the General Division that neither her husband’s home in Seattle, nor her home in British Columbia were considered the family home. Footnote 21 Rather, his home was his and her home was hers. [ 71 ] The Claimant testified that she and her husband were renting. So there was no ownership issue affecting how either home could be characterized. The Claimant described neither location as a shared family home and made no suggestion that she and her husband lived at both locations. The Claimant’s testimony distinguished the two homes as separate. This supports that when she went to the United States she was visiting rather than residing. [ 72 ] In the Claimant’s submissions to the Tribunal, she used the words that she was “visiting” or “staying with” her husband. Footnote 22 The Claimant also testified to the General Division that the trip to Seattle wasn’t for personal reasons. Footnote 23 Rather, she feels that the visit was mandatory because of her work situation. Footnote 24 This also implies she doesn’t consider Seattle to be a residence with which she has an established connection. Describing this as a visit suggests the Claimant was going to see her spouse for a limited purpose, specifically her need to have a strategy session. It doesn’t suggest that the Claimant looked at the Seattle residence as her own. [ 73 ] The Claimant was clear there was no family home. There was no evidence that the Claimant had any day-to-day connection with Seattle other than the fact that her husband, who usually visited her, lived there. The Claimant didn’t support that she resides outside Canada either temporarily or permanently. As the Commission noted, the Claimant consistently described her time in Seattle as “visiting”, which supports this finding. [ 74 ] Taken together, these factors lead me to conclude that the Claimant can’t be considered to reside outside Canada temporarily in Seattle. Residing outside Canada, even temporarily, requires more than visiting. Based on the evidence, including the Claimant’s testimony that there was no family home, I am not persuaded that she was residing temporarily at her husband’s home, or outside Canada, within the meaning of section 55(6). [ 75 ] Even if the Claimant didn’t intend to use the word “visit”, I would still find the Claimant hasn’t established any other factors that would support that she resides temporarily or permanently in Seattle. Apart from the fact that she’s married to [NAME] living in Seattle, there were no other connecting factors present. Marriage alone doesn’t create a presumption that [NAME] is residing where their spouse does. So, the Claimant is disentitled to [NAME] from June 17, 2025, to June 19, 2025. No other situation under section 55 of the [NAME] applies to the Claimant [ 76 ] Before the General Division, the Claimant also argued she was continuing to look for work while she was in the United States. It seemed she was suggesting that this could fall under section 55(1)(f) of the [NAME] that she was conducting a bona fide job search. The Commission argued this section doesn’t apply to the Claimant. At the Appeal Division, the Claimant said she was no longer arguing that this section applied to her. The Claimant is disentitled from receiving [NAME] from June 17, 2025, to June 19, 2025, because she was outside Canada [ 77 ] As noted above, the Commission conceded the Claimant is entitled to [NAME] on June 16, 2025, and June 20, 2025. Footnote 25 [ 78 ] For June 17, 2025, to June 19, 2025, the Claimant is disentitled from receiving [NAME]. The Claimant didn’t establish that she resides outside Canada temporarily or permanently as contemplated by section 55(6) of the [NAME]. Conclusion [ 79 ] The appeal is allowed. The General Division made an error of law when it didn’t provide reasons that allowed its decision to be understood. [ 80 ] I have given the decision the General Division should have given. The Claimant is not disentitled to [NAME] on June 16, 2025, and on June 20, 2025, because she wasn’t outside Canada for complete 24-hour periods. The Claimant is disentitled to [NAME] from June 17, 2025, to June 19, 2025, because she was outside Canada for consecutive 24-hour periods during those days. An exception under section 55(6) of the [NAME] doesn’t apply. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See AD6-6 where the Commission concedes this. This was confirmed during the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2014  FCA  46 at paragraph 29. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See also, AD6-6, the Commission conceded the Claimant is entitled to [NAME] on June 16, 2025, and on June 20, 2025. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See the General Division decision at paragraph 21. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See the General Division decision at paragraph 23. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 Section 59(1) of the DESD Actallows me to fix the General Division’s errors in this way. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada (National Revenue) , 2025  SCC  13 at paragraph 44;  R  v  [NAME] , 2017  SCC  37 at paragraph 24, citing  [COMPANY]  v  [NAME] , 2002  SCC  42, at paragraph 45;  [NAME].  v  Canada , 2005  SCC  54;  [COMPANY]. (Re) , 1998 CanLII 837 ( SCC ) at paragraph 21. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See https://www.[NAME].com/simple/reside. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See https://www.[NAME].com/dictionary/resides. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2012  FCA  237 at paragraph 4. The FCA also noted that Florida is not contiguous to Canada, so the claimant wouldn’t have qualified in any event. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See G.M.  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2018  [NAME]  770 at paragraphs 22 and 23. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See CUB 28452. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See CUB 12206. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 [NAME]  v  Minister of National Revenue , 1946 CanLII 1 ( SCC ), [1946] SCR 209 at 225. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See CUB 27413. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 For example, some of the other exceptions in section 55 of the [NAME] include: that you’re seeking medical treatment that isn’t available in the area you’re ordinarily resident; you can also continue receiving [NAME], for a short term, if you leave the country to visit a sick relative or attend a relative’s funeral. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 For example, see Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2012  FCA  237. The Federal Court of Appeal required something more than just a mere presence. See also CUB 12206 and CUB 28452. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 Listen to the General Division hearing recording at 00:21:45. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 Listen to the General Division hearing recording at 00:18:57 and 00:25:43. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 Listen to the General Division hearing recording at 00:19:29. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 Listen to the General Division hearing recording at 00:15:36 and 00:18:52. See also GD2-11, the Claimant’s Notice of Appeal to the General Division. In the Claimant’s Notice of Appeal to the General Division, she also notes that she was “briefly stay with my husband” in Seattle at GD2-32. See also GD3-26, the Claimant’s Reconsideration Request to the Commission where the Claimant noted she was “staying with her husband”. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 Listen to the General Division hearing recording at 00:49:47. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 Listen to the General Division hearing recording at 00:55:35. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2014  FCA  46 at paragraph 29. The Commission conceded this, see AD6-6. Return to footnote 25 referrer