Claimant Denied Employment Insurance Benefits While Abroad

Citation: AS  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  [NAME]  19 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Employment Insurance Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: Canada Employment Insurance Commission reconsideration decision (742492) dated September 8, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: December 30, 2025 Hearing participant: None Decision date: January 5, 2026 File number: GE-25-3376 On this page Decision Overview Issues Preliminary issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant was outside Canada and is disentitled from being paid [NAME] benefits from August 10, 2022, to September 2, 2022, and from October 13, 2022, to December 3, 2022. [ 3 ] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) had the right to impose a penalty on the Appellant. Overview [ 4 ] The Commission discovered that the Appellant previously left Canada on three separate occasions during the Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) benefit period. The Appellant didn’t report her absences in her bi-weekly reports and received [NAME] payments during those periods. A claimant is not entitled to receive [NAME] benefits while outside Canada unless an exemption applies, subject to their availability for work. The Commission issued a notice of debt for [NAME] benefit overpayments and imposed penalties for misrepresentation. [ 5 ] The Appellant advised the Commission that the first trip was to attend a job interview, the second was to visit a [NAME], and the third was to conduct a bona fide job search. The Commission accepted the Appellant’s explanations and applied the seven-day exemptions permitted under section 55(1) of the Employment Insurance Regulation to each trip. The Commission found that the Appellant was available for work during the exemption periods. [ 6 ] As a result of these adjustments, the exemption fully covered the first trip.

Accordingly, the Commission rescinded the disentitlement for that period. For the remaining two trips, which were longer than the exemption periods, the overpayment amount was reduced. [ 7 ] The Commission imposed penalty for knowingly providing false information on nine claim reports, as the Appellant declared that she was not outside Canada when, in fact, she was. Issues [ 8 ] Can the Appellant receive benefits for when she was outside Canada? [ 9 ] Did the Commission act fairly when it gave the Appellant a penalty? Preliminary issue The Appellant didn’t attend the hearing [ 10 ] The Appellant didn’t attend the hearing. A notice of hearing was emailed to the Appellant on December 22, 2025, using the email address she had used to contact the Tribunal to submit her appeal. The Tribunal contacted the Appellant by telephone on December 23, 2025, and left a message regarding the scheduled hearing. [ 11 ] The Tribunal sent a reminder email on December 29, 2025, but received no response from the Appellant. The Tribunal also attempted to contact the Appellant at the scheduled hearing time but was unable to reach her. [ 12 ] Section 22(3) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure (Rules of Procedure) states that a party is deemed to have received an email from the Tribunal on the next business day. This means that the Appellant is deemed to have received the notice of hearing on December 24, 2025. A hearing can go ahead without the appellant if they have the notice of hearing. Footnote 1 In this case, I was satisfied that the Appellant received the notice. So, the hearing went ahead as planned, but without her. [ 13 ] The Appellant contacted the Tribunal the following day and advised that she was ill and therefore unable to attend the hearing. She also indicated that she would not be able to attend a hearing for another week or so due to illness and requested that the matter be rescheduled. However, the Appellant was able to communicate by email shortly after the missed hearing to make this request. In these circumstances, I am not convinced that she was so ill that she wasn’t able to contact the Tribunal prior to the hearing to advise of her illness and request an adjournment, particularly given her ability to do so shortly thereafter.

Accordingly, I find that the Appellant chose not to attend the scheduled hearing. [ 14 ] Section 43(3) of the Rules of Procedure allows me to exercise my discretion to reschedule a hearing only if it is necessary for a fair hearing.

For the reasons set out above, I find that the Appellant has already been given a fair hearing. As such, I deny the request to reschedule. The Appellant’s availability isn’t an issue in this appeal [ 15 ] The question of whether the Appellant was available for work while outside of Canada is only relevant if she meets an exemption for being outside Canada for all or part of her absence. Footnote 2 If an exemption applies, she must then also prove that she was available for work during that period. [ 16 ] In this case, the Commission has accepted that the Appellant met the exemptions for being outside Canada and that she was available for work during the exemption periods.

Accordingly, her availability for work during those periods is no longer in dispute. [ 17 ] The Commission maintains the Appellant hasn’t proven that she was available for work while outside Canada beyond the exemption periods. However, section 37(b) of the [NAME] alone disentitles a claimant from receiving benefits while outside Canada during periods to which no exemption applies. Regardless of a claimant’s availability for work, they are not entitled to receive benefits during those periods. Therefore, this appeal doesn’t address availability issue but focuses on the issues set out above. Analysis Can the Appellant be paid benefits while outside Canada? [ 18 ] The general rule is that you can’t get [NAME] benefits if you are outside Canada. Footnote 3 But, the law includes exceptions. For example, you can get [NAME] benefits if you are outside Canada to visit an immediate family member who is seriously ill. Footnote 4 The day of travel isn’t usually included in the disentitlement from benefits. Footnote 5 [ 19 ] The basic facts aren’t in dispute. The Appellant travelled outside Canada on three different occasions: a) March 14, 2022 to March 21, 2022 b) August 3, 2022 to September 4, 2022 c) October 6, 2022 to February 21, 2023 [ 20 ] The Appellant says she travelled outside Canada to attend a job interview, to visit a [NAME], and to conduct a bona fide job search, respectively. [ 21 ] The Commission decided that the Appellant’s reasons for being outside Canada fell within the exceptions set out in section 55(1) of the [NAME]. It applied the seven-day exemption, the maximum period permitted under the law for the reasons provided, to each trip. Footnote 6 As a result of these adjustments, the Appellant’s disentitlement periods were reduced to August 10, 2022, to September 2, 2022, and October 13, 2022, to December 3, 2022, ending when her benefit period concluded. [ 22 ] For these adjusted periods, I find that the Appellant isn’t entitled to receive [NAME] benefits because she was outside Canada for longer than the law allows under the applicable exceptions. Did the Commission act fairly when it imposed a penalty? [ 23 ] To impose a penalty, the Commission must show that the Appellant knowingly provided false or misleading information. Footnote 7 [ 24 ] It’s not enough to show that the Appellant provided false or misleading information. The Commission must show it’s more likely than not that the Appellant provided this information knowing that it was false or misleading. Footnote 8 [ 25 ] If it’s clear from the evidence the questions were simple and the Appellant answered incorrectly, then I can infer that she knew the information was false or misleading. Then, the Appellant must explain why she gave incorrect answers and show that she did not do it knowingly. Footnote 9 [ 26 ] I do not need to consider whether the Appellant intended to defraud or deceive the Commission when deciding whether she is subject to a penalty. Footnote 10 [ 27 ] The Commission may impose a penalty for each false or misleading statement knowingly made by the Appellant. [ 28 ] The Commission says the Appellant knowingly made false statements on nine of her claims by failing to report that she was outside Canada on all three occasions. [ 29 ] The Commission says the Appellant knew at the time she completed her reports that she was out of the country but answered “no” to the questions asking her if she was outside Canada for any period during the report. These statements misled the Commission, and it paid the Appellant benefits that she wasn’t entitled to receive. The Commission further submits that the Appellant didn’t present any mitigating circumstances. [ 30 ] I find that the Commission has shown that the Appellant knowingly made false or misleading statements and was therefore entitled to impose a penalty. The Appellant made a total of nine false reports over three separate trips outside Canada at different points during the benefit period. Given the number of false reports made over multiple reporting periods, I see no reasonable explanation other than that the Appellant knowingly reported that she was not outside Canada. Did the Commission properly decide the penalty amount? [ 31 ] The Commission’s decision on the penalty amount is discretionary. Footnote 11 This means that it is open to the Commission to set it at the amount it thinks is correct. I have to look at how the Commission exercised its discretion. I can only change the penalty amount if I first decide that the Commission did not exercise its discretion properly when it set the amount. Footnote 12 [ 32 ] In this case, the Commission imposed a monetary penalty after determining that the Appellant misrepresented her absence from Canada while receiving [NAME] regular benefits. It considered that this was the Appellant’s first instance of misrepresentation but noted that no mitigating circumstances were provided. I see no evidence that the Commission failed to consider relevant factors or considered irrelevant ones. There is also nothing to suggest that the Commission acted in bad faith or with an improper motive when it decided the penalty. [ 33 ] Because the Commission exercised its discretion properly, I cannot change the decision it made. Conclusion [ 34 ] On both issues before me, the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 Section 58 of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure  sets out this rule. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 55(1), which states that a claimant is not disentitled from receiving benefits for being outside Canada subject to section 18 of the Employment Insurance Act , which requires the claimant to be available for work while receiving benefits. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See section 37(b) of the Employment Insurance Act . Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 55 of the Employment Insurance Regulations (Regulations). Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 In Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2014  FCA  46, the Federal Court says that the length of the disentitlement is to be calculated in complete, whole days, during which the Appellant was outside Canada. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 The Commission applied section 55(1)(e), (d) and (f). Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 38 of the [NAME] Act. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2003  FCA  341. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  210. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2002  FCA  24. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2007  FCA  287. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2007  FCA  287. The Commission’s decision can only be interfered with if it exercised its discretionary power in a non-judicial manner or acted in a perverse or capricious manner without regard to the material before it: Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2003  FCA  281. Discretion is exercised in a non-judicial manner if the decision-maker acted in bad faith, or for an improper purpose or motive, took into account an irrelevant factor or ignored a relevant factor or acted in a discriminatory manner: Attorney General of Canada  v  [NAME] , A-694-94. Return to footnote 12 referrer