Claimant Entitled to EI Benefits While Caring for Mother in US

Citation: [NAME]  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  110 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Employment Insurance Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: Canada Employment Insurance Commission reconsideration decision (734213) dated September 25, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: February 4, 2026 Hearing participant: Appellant Decision date: February 4, 2026 File number: GE-26-229 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 2 ] This means the Appellant was entitled to regular Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) benefits from July 2, 2021, to September 10, 2021. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant applied for [NAME] benefits on July 5, 2021, and established a renewal claim for [NAME] regular benefits on June 27, 2021. [ 4 ] The Appellant travelled Outside of Canada from June 24, 2021, to September 11, 2021. [ 5 ] The Commission says the Appellant could be paid [NAME] benefits until July 1, 2021, because they allowed for an exemption under the law. However, the Commission says the Appellant couldn’t be paid [NAME] benefits from July 2, 2021, to September 10, 2021, because he was Outside of Canada. [ 6 ] The Commission says that additional information was required from the Appellant about his absence from Canada. [ 7 ] The Appellant says he should be allowed an exemption from his disentitlement under the law. He says he was available for work while caring for his mother in New York City and Buffalo from July 2, 2021, to September 10, 2021. He also says while temporarily living in New York City and Buffalo he was willing to report personally to a Commission office in Canada if requested by the Commission. Issue [ 8 ] Was the Appellant entitled to [NAME] benefits while Outside of Canada from July 2, 2021, to September 10, 2021? Analysis [ 9 ] A claimant isn’t entitled to receive [NAME] benefits for any period during which the claimant isn’t in Canada except as prescribed in the regulations. Footnote 1 [ 10 ] The law says the onus is on a claimant to prove their absence Outside of Canada would meet the exceptions prescribed in the regulations. Footnote 2 [ 11 ] The law says a claimant who isn’t self-employed person and who resides Outside Canada isn’t 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. Footnote 3 Was the Appellant entitled to [NAME] benefits while Outside of Canada from July 2, 2021, to September 10, 2021? [ 12 ] I find the Appellant was entitled to [NAME] benefits while Outside of Canada from July 2, 2021, to September 10, 2021. I make this finding because the Appellant has proven he met the exemption listed in section 55(6)(a) of the [NAME] regulations for the following reasons: [ 13 ] First: The Appellant was residing temporarily in a state of the United States that was contiguous to Canada. Specifically, the Appellant initially travelled to New York City on June 24, 2021 (to care for his mother) and then travelled (by plane) with his mother to Buffalo sometime in early August 2021. The Appellant then returned to Canada sometime after September 10, 2021. [ 14 ] Second: I accept as credible the Appellant’s testimony that he was temporarily residing in New York City and Buffalo from July 2, 2021, to September 10, 2021, because his statements were detailed and forthright. Specifically, the Appellant testified that on June 24, 2021, he initially travelled (by plane) to New York City to stay with his brother and help care for his mother who was sick. The Appellant further testified that sometime in early August 2021 he travelled with his mother (by plane) from New York City to Buffalo where he stayed with another brother and continued to care for his mother. [ 15 ] Third: I accept the Appellant’s testimony he was available for work while temporarily residing in New York City and Buffalo. I accept the Appellant’s testimony on this matter because his statements were consistent and plausible. I wish to emphasize the Commission hasn’t contested that the Appellant wasn’t available for work while Outside Canada from September 2, 2021, to September 10, 2021. [ 16 ] Fourth: I accept as credible the Appellant’s testimony that he was willing to report personally to a Commission office in Canada when requested by the Commission. I accept the Appellant’s testimony on this matter because his statements were forthright and plausible. [ 17 ] In summary: The Appellant has proven he met one of the exceptions for being Outside of Canada from September 2, 2021, to September 10, 2021. As a result, the Appellant was entitled to [NAME] benefits from September 2, 2021, to September 10, 2021. Additional submissions from the Commission [ 18 ] In their representations, the Commission submitted that additional information was required from the Appellant about his absence from Canada (GD6-5). In my view, the Appellant has now provided additional information about his absence from Canada for the period in question. As mentioned, the Appellant testified that starting on June 24, 2021, he travelled (by plane) to New York City and stayed with his brother to help care for his sick mother. The Appellant then testified he travelled with his mother (by plane) from New York City to Buffalo where he stayed with another brother while continuing to care for his mother. The Appellant also testified that during the period in question (July 2, 2021, to September 10, 2021) he was temporarily residing in New York City and Buffalo and only returned to Canada after September 10, 2021. Conclusion [ 19 ] The Appellant was entitled to [NAME] benefits from July 2, 2021, to September 10, 2021. [ 20 ] The appeal is allowed. Footnotes Footnote 1 Section 37(b) of the Employment Insurance Act ( [NAME] Act) and Section 55 of the Employment Insurance Regulations ( [NAME]). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , A-370-95. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 Paragraph 55(6)(a) of the [NAME] and subject to subsection 7 of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 3 referrer