Claimant Denied EI Benefits Due to Active Business Involvement

[TRANSLATION] Citation: TM  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  22 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 18, 2025 (GE-25-3136) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 16, 2026 File number: AD-26-30 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Preliminary remarks Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead. Overview [ 2 ] The Applicant (Claimant) left her job to take care of her struggling business and to try to turn the situation around. So, as of September 1, 2025, she was involved in a business—specifically a [NAME]. [ 3 ] The Respondent (Commission) found that the Claimant was working full work weeks from September 1, 2025. As a result, the Commission decided that she could not receive Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) benefits. On reconsideration, the Commission maintained its initial decision. The Claimant disagreed and appealed to the Tribunal’s General Division. [ 4 ] The General Division decided that the Claimant was disentitled from receiving [NAME]  benefits from September 1, 2025, because she wasn’t unemployed. [ 5 ] The Claimant is asking the Appeal Division for permission to appeal the General Division decision. The Claimant argues that the General Division made errors of fact and of law. [ 6 ] I have to decide whether there is an arguable case that the General Division made a reviewable error based on which the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. [ 7 ] I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal. Issue [ 8 ] Does the Claimant’s appeal have a reasonable chance of success based on a reviewable error the General Division may have made? Analysis [ 9 ] The law specifies the only grounds of appeal of a General Division decision. Footnote 1 These reviewable errors are the following:

1. The General Division hearing process wasn’t fair in some way.

2. The General Division didn’t decide an issue that it should have decided. Or, it decided something it didn’t have the power to decide.

3. The General Division based its decision on an important error of fact.

4. The General Division made an error of law when making its decision. [ 10 ] An application for permission to appeal is a preliminary step to a hearing on the merits. It is an initial hurdle for the Claimant to meet, but it is lower than the one that has to be met at the hearing of the appeal on the merits. At the permission to appeal stage, the Claimant doesn’t have to prove her case; she has to instead establish that her appeal has a reasonable chance of success. This means that she has to show that there is arguably a reviewable error based on which the appeal might succeed. I will give permission to appeal if I am satisfied that at least one of the Claimant’s stated grounds of appeal gives the appeal a reasonable chance of success. Preliminary remarks [ 11 ] I have to decide this application for permission to appeal based only on the evidence that was before the General Division. The Appeal Division doesn’t accept new evidence, except in some circumstances that don’t apply in this case. Footnote 2 I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal [ 12 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division made an important error when it said that the replacement educator would only be available in February 2026. This information is wrong because the educator joined the team that was already in place on October 27, 2025. That person has in fact been replacing her in interviews, training, and at times when she is away from the business. She has kept her employability and is available to work right away. Footnote 3 [ 13 ] The Claimant also argues that the General Division made an error of law by giving too much weight to the time factor without making an overall and balanced assessment as the Employment Insurance Regulations  ( [NAME]) and case law require. [ 14 ] The General Division reviewed the evidence. It considered the six factors set out in section 30(3) of the [NAME]. It found that, for the period in question, the Claimant hadn’t shown that her level of involvement in her business was so minor in extent that it could not be her principal means of livelihood. [ 15 ] Case law from the Federal Court of Appeal that was more recent than what the General Division used has established that all six criteria have to be analyzed together, without giving more weight to any of them. Each case has to be assessed on its own facts. Giving more importance to one factor than the others is an error of law. Footnote 4 [ 16 ] The text of the [NAME] has to be considered as a whole, since a person might spend little time on their business and still rely on it as a principal means of livelihood. Also, not earning enough income doesn’t necessarily mean that a claimant is unemployed . [ 17 ] In my view, even if the Appeal Division found that the General Division made an error—by giving too much weight to the time spent on the business, or by finding that the educator joined the staff on October 27, 2025, instead of February 2026—there would be no reason to intervene to change the General Division’s finding about the Claimant’s unemployment status. Time spent [ 18 ] The General Division found from the evidence that the Claimant focused hard on the business after leaving her job. [ 19 ] In support of her claim for [NAME]  benefits effective August 31, 2025, the Claimant said the following: [translation] I left my job so I could work full-time on growing and running this business smoothly. It needs full-time involvement, both for the educational side and the administrative side. Since July 3, 2025, I have been working from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. every day to fully manage the [NAME] …. Footnote 5 [ 20 ] After the Commission gave its initial negative decision, the Claimant stated that she worked at the [NAME] only on weekdays, from Monday to Friday, during the day and in the evening. On weekends, she focused on looking for a salaried job. [ 21 ] At the General Division hearing, the Claimant said that she was still working full-time for her business, but that her priority was to find work because she could not keep living without any income. Investments [ 22 ] The General Division found from the evidence that the Claimant had invested a large amount of money in the business. [ 23 ] The Claimant had initially invested $40,000 with other investors in February 2019. She became a sole shareholder in March 2023. She paid $17,000 in May 2024 to change the lease and the business name. The business now has $30,000 in debt. The Claimant has $60,000 in personal debt. In December 2024, she had to pay $150,000 in debts related to the [NAME]. She lost her house because of the [NAME] debts. Financial success or failure [ 24 ] The General Division found from the evidence that the business wasn’t a success. The Claimant wanted to later sell the business that was losing money. Continuity [ 25 ] The General Division found from the evidence that the Claimant wanted to try to turn her business around after leaving her job so it could make money. She said that if she could find a job in her field, she could still manage her business and later sell it. This shows that she intends to keep the business running. Nature of the self-employment/business [ 26 ] The General Division found that the Claimant’s work in her business was different in nature from the work she had done before. [ 27 ] The Claimant normally worked in salaried positions as a payroll and human resources specialist. Intention and willingness to find another job quickly [ 28 ] The General Division considered that the Claimant had left her job to try to turn her business around. Because of how much work this required, it decided that she could not do this while also working in her field. She herself acknowledged this in her benefits claim. Footnote 6 [ 29 ] The General Division accepted the Claimant’s testimony that she kept spending her time on the [NAME] while looking for work. It also accepted that she still wanted to try to turn her business around so she could later sell it. [ 30 ] The evidence before the General Division shows that the Claimant didn’t actually start looking for work until October 2025, after the Commission gave its unfavourable decision on October 3, 2025. Footnote 7 This finding is supported by the fact that—two days earlier, on October 1, 2025—the Claimant told the Commission that she wasn’t looking for work outside her business. Footnote 8 [ 31 ] The evidence before the General Division doesn’t show that the Claimant intended to or wanted to find another job quickly at the start of her benefits claim or during her benefit period . Instead, it shows an ongoing intention to put a great deal of effort in keeping her business running. Operation of a business to such a minor extent [ 32 ] The General Division applied the objective test in section 30(2) of the [NAME] to the Claimant’s situation. It found that at least four of the relevant factors showed that the Claimant’s involvement in the business during her benefit period wasn’t so minor in extent. [ 33 ] The evidence supports the General Division’s finding that the Claimant’s involvement in the business was sufficient for it to normally be considered her principal means of livelihood under section 30(2) of the [NAME]. [ 34 ] I find that the Claimant hasn’t raised any reviewable errors based on which the appeal might succeed. The evidence on file supports the General Division’s finding that the Claimant wasn’t unemployed. [ 35 ] After reviewing the appeal file, the General Division decision, and the arguments in support of the application for permission to appeal, I am of the view that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. The Claimant hasn’t raised any issue that could justify setting aside the decision under review. Conclusion [ 36 ] Permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  157. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See AD1-11 and AD1-12. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2012  FCA  62; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2012  FCA  290. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD3-9. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 The Claimant said she wasn’t looking for another job and wanted to spend her time only on her self-employment. See GD3-18; and paragraph 19 of this decision. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See GD5-1 to GD5-72, and GD3-31. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD3-29. Return to footnote 8 referrer