Claimant Denied Regular Benefits Due to Insufficient Hours

[TRANSLATION] Citation: MR v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  86 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 2, 2025 (GE-25-2908) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: February 9, 2026 File number: AD-25-824 On this page Decision Overview Issue Preliminary remarks Analysis I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead. Overview [ 2 ] On March 6, 2025, the Applicant (Claimant) applied for [NAME] ) sickness benefits. A sickness benefit period was established as of February 16, 2025. The Respondent (Commission) found that he was entitled because he had worked more than 600 insurable hours during his qualifying period. [ 3 ] On September 4, 2025, the Claimant asked that his sickness benefits be converted to regular benefits. The Commission found that he hadn’t worked enough insurable hours during his qualifying period to qualify for regular benefits. He needed 700 hours, but he had 632 hours during his qualifying period. [ 4 ] The Claimant argued that the Commission had to use the date he asked for his sickness benefits to be converted into regular benefits to find the rate of unemployment in his region. On reconsideration, the Commission upheld its initial decision. The Claimant appealed to the Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] The General Division found that the Claimant hadn’t worked enough hours to qualify for regular benefits. [ 6 ] The Claimant is asking the Appeal Division for permission to appeal the Tribunal’s General Division decision. He finds it unfair to consider the February 15, 2025, rate of unemployment. He didn’t choose to get sick at that time. The situation was beyond his control. [ 7 ] On December 31, 2025, I sent the Claimant a letter asking him to give detailed reasons why he wanted to appeal the Tribunal’s General Division decision. He responded on time. [ 8 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division made a serious error of fact in finding that he had stopped working for personal reasons. It didn’t consider the medical reports showing that he had, instead, stopped working because he was sick. He argues that the Commission already had his medical reports showing that he wasn’t fit to go back to work. He is challenging the law. [ 9 ] 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. [ 10 ] I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal. Issue [ 11 ] Does the Claimant’s appeal have a reasonable chance of success based on a reviewable error the General Division may have made? Preliminary remarks [ 12 ] Before the General Division, the Claimant testified that he had worked a few more hours after February 15, 2025. He provided the Appeal Division with a Record of Employment ( ROE ) showing 37 additional insurable hours. Footnote 1 As the General Division noted, these hours were worked after his qualifying period ended on February 15, 2025. They can’t be counted as insurable hours accumulated during his qualifying period. [ 13 ] In any event, even if I were to consider the ROE that the Claimant provided, he still would not have enough hours to qualify for regular benefits. Analysis [ 14 ] The law specifies the only grounds of appeal of a General Division decision. Footnote 2 These reviewable errors are the following: The General Division hearing process wasn’t fair in some way. 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. The General Division based its decision on an important error of fact. The General Division made an error of law when making its decision. [ 15 ] 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 his case; he has to instead establish that his appeal has a reasonable chance of success. This means that he has to show that there is arguably a reviewable error based on which the appeal might succeed. [ 16 ] 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. I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal [ 17 ] The Claimant finds it unfair to consider the February 15, 2025, rate of unemployment. He didn’t choose to get sick at that time. The situation was beyond his control. [ 18 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division made a serious error of fact in finding that he had stopped working for personal reasons. It didn’t consider the medical reports showing that he had, instead, stopped working because he was sick. He argues that the Commission already had his medical reports showing that he wasn’t fit to go back to work. He is challenging the law. [ 19 ] The General Division had to decide whether the Claimant had enough hours of insurable employment to establish a claim for regular benefits. [ 20 ] The General Division found that the Claimant had initially applied for EI  sickness benefits on March 6, 2025. That claim was effective February 16, 2025. [ 21 ] The General Division found that the Claimant had asked to convert sickness benefits to regular benefits on September 4, 2025. He said that he had been available for and capable of work since September 1,  2025. Footnote 3 [ 22 ] The General Division noted that, during their benefit period, a claimant might ask to have their benefits converted. It correctly found that asking for a conversion didn’t change the date used to determine the rate of unemployment. [ 23 ] The General Division found that, to qualify for regular benefits, a claimant living in an economic region with an unemployment rate of 5.9% had to have at least 700 insurable hours when applying for benefits. The General Division found that the Claimant needed 700 hours, but he had only 632 hours during his qualifying period. [ 24 ] The General Division found that the Claimant hadn’t worked enough hours to qualify for regular benefits. [ 25 ] The law says that a benefit period is established when a claimant qualifies for benefits. The Claimant qualified when he applied for benefits on February 16, 2025. He then had an interruption of earnings, and he had the required number of hours during his qualifying period. Footnote 4 [ 26 ] The law also says that when a claim for benefits is established, the insurable hours used to establish it can’t be used to establish a new claim for benefits. Footnote 5 [ 27 ] To be able to convert his application for sickness benefits to regular benefits on September 4, 2025, the Claimant had to have 700 hours of insurable employment when he applied on February 16, 2025. He had only 632 hours. Also, he didn’t have enough hours of insurable employment to establish a new claim for regular benefits as of September 4, 2025. [ 28 ] As the General Division noted, EI is an insurance plan and, like other insurance plans, you have to meet certain requirements to receive benefits. [ 29 ] In this case, the Claimant doesn’t meet the requirements. So, he isn’t entitled to regular benefits. [ 30 ] I sympathize with the Claimant who had to stop working because he was sick. But the law doesn’t give the General Division and Appeal Division the discretion to give him benefits, even for compassionate reasons. [ 31 ] 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 [ 32 ] Permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead. Footnotes Footnote 1 See AD1C-2. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 See GD3-29. Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 See section 7 of the Employment Insurance Act (Act). Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 See section 8(1)(b) of theAct. Return to footnote 5