Claimant Qualifies for EI Benefits Despite Employer Bankruptcy
📌 In brief
A claimant applied for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits but was denied because her employer had gone bankrupt, making it impossible to provide necessary documentation. However, the claimant managed to prove she had worked enough hours to qualify for EI benefits through a ruling by the Canada Revenue Agency. The Social Security Tribunal of Canada then granted her EI benefits.
⚖️ Legal holding
A claimant can qualify for EI regular benefits if they can demonstrate they worked the required hours, even if documentation is unavailable due to the employer's bankruptcy.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines the requirements for an individual to qualify for Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits, including having worked a certain number of hours during a qualifying period.
This regulation specifies that an insured person can qualify for special EI benefits if they have experienced an interruption of earnings and have worked at least 600 hours of insurable employment during their qualifying period.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant successfully proved she worked enough hours to qualify for EI regular benefits despite her employer's bankruptcy.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant applied for Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits but was initially denied due to insufficient documented hours. After proving she worked the required hours through a Canada Revenue Agency ruling, the claimant was granted EI benefits. The decision highlights the importance of verifying hours worked even in cases of employer bankruptcy.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Citation: BB v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026 SST 109 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Employment Insurance Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: Canada Employment Insurance Commission reconsideration decision (0) dated December 19, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In Writing Decision date: February 2, 2026 File number: GE-25-3563 On this page Decision Overview Matters I have to consider first Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 2 ] The Appellant has shown that she has worked enough hours to qualify for Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) regular benefits. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant applied for [NAME] regular benefits. But the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that the Appellant hadn’t worked enough hours to qualify for [NAME] regular benefits. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] I have to decide whether the Appellant has worked enough hours to qualify for [NAME] regular benefits. [ 5 ] The Commission said the Appellant didn’t have enough hours because she needs at least 630 hours but only had 623 hours in her qualifying period from June 1, 2024, to May 31, 2025. Footnote 2 [ 6 ] The Appellant disagreed. She said she worked enough hours to qualify for [NAME] regular benefits, but couldn’t get her pay stubs to show that, because the employer went bankrupt. Footnote 3 [ 7 ] The Commission maintained its decision on reconsideration. Footnote 4 The Tribunal’s General Division ([NAME]) upheld the Commission’s reconsideration decision. The Appellant appealed the [NAME]’s decision to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division (AD). Matters I have to consider first The Appellant’s appeal was returned from the Tribunal’s Appeal Division (AD) [ 8 ] The AD found that the [NAME] made an error of jurisdiction when it determined it could verify the number of hours the Appellant worked. [ 9 ] The AD ordered the appeal be returned to the [NAME] for a new hearing by a different Member, so a Canada Revenue Agency ( [NAME] ) ruling on the number of hours the Appellant worked could be obtained. [ 10 ] This decision is the result of that hearing. Method of hearing [ 11 ] The Appellant said in her Notice of Appeal to the Tribunal that she had no preference about the method of hearing her appeal. [ 12 ] In light of the January 22, 2026, [NAME] ruling that states the Appellant has 648 hours from June 1, 2024, to June 1, 2025, Footnote 5 and the Commission’s confirmation of its position that she has enough hours in her qualifying period to establish her claim, I find that the quickest and most fair method of hearing the Appellant’s appeal is in writing. It wouldn’t be fair to the Appellant to have to wait for a scheduled teleconference or videoconference hearing, when a hearing in writing can take place immediately. Issue [ 13 ] Does the Appellant have enough hours to qualify for [NAME] regular benefits? Analysis How to qualify for benefits [ 14 ] Not everyone who stops work can receive [NAME] benefits. You have to prove that you qualify for benefits. Footnote 6 The Appellant has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means that she has to show that it is more likely than not that she qualifies for benefits. [ 15 ] To qualify, you need to have worked enough hours within a certain time frame. This time frame is called the qualifying period. Footnote 7 [ 16 ] The number of hours you need to qualify for benefits depends on the unemployment rate in your region. Footnote 8 The Appellant’s qualifying period [ 17 ] Your benefit period isn’t the same thing as your qualifying period . It is a different time frame. Your benefit period is the time when you can receive [NAME] benefits. The qualifying period is the timeframe where insurable hours are worked to establish a claim. [ 18 ] As noted above, the hours counted are the ones that the Appellant worked during her qualifying period. In general, the qualifying period is the 52 weeks before your benefit period would start. Footnote 9 [ 19 ] The Commission decided that the Appellant’s qualifying period is from June 9, 2024, to June 7, 2025. I see no evidence that makes me doubt the Commission’s decision. So, I accept as fact that the Appellant’s qualifying period is from June 9, 2024, to June 7, 2025. The hours the Appellant worked [ 20 ] The [NAME] has ruled that the Appellant worked 648 hours from June 1, 2024, to June 1, 2025. Footnote 10 The Commission confirmed that this means the Appellant worked 634 hours in her qualifying period from June 9, 2024, to June 7, 2025, and that this is sufficient to establish a benefit period. It adds that if the Appellant’s claim were to be backdated to June 1, 2024, she would have 645 insurable hours in the qualifying period of June 2, 2024, to May 31, 2025, which also meets the requirements to establish a benefit period. Footnote 11 [ 21 ] I find that the Appellant has 634 hours in her qualifying period, from June 9, 2024, to June 7, 2025. The number of hours required to qualify for [NAME] benefits [ 22 ] To qualify for [NAME] regular benefits, the number of hours required depends on the unemployment rate in your region. Footnote 12 The Commission decided that the Appellant’s region when she applied for benefits was [NAME], Footnote 13 and that the regional rate of unemployment at the time was 8%. Footnote 14 It says that based on the unemployment rate in her region, in order to qualify for regular benefits, the Appellant needed 630 hours during her qualifying period. Footnote 15 I have found that the Appellant’s qualifying period is from June 9, 2024, to June 7, 2025. [ 23 ] The Appellant didn’t dispute her economic region, the unemployment rate in her economic region at the time she applied for benefits, or the number of hours required to qualify for benefits. [ 24 ] There is no evidence that makes me doubt that the Appellant needed 630 hours during her qualifying period to qualify for [NAME] regular benefits. The Appellant has 634 hours in her qualifying period, so I find that she qualifies for [NAME] regular benefits So, has the Appellant worked enough hours to qualify forEI regular benefits? [ 25 ] Yes. The Appellant has accumulated 634 hours in her qualifying period, and she needs 630. Conclusion [ 26 ] The Appellant has enough hours to qualify for [NAME] regular benefits. [ 27 ] This means that the appeal is allowed. Footnotes Footnote 1 Section 7 of the Employment Insurance Act (Act) and section 93 of the Employment Insurance Regulations (Regulations) say that the hours worked have to be “hours of insurable employment.” In this decision, when I say “hours,” I am referring to “hours of insurable employment.” Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD4-3. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD3-28. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD3-34. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See RGD5-2. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 48 of the Act. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 7 of the Act and section 93 of the Regulations. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 7(2)(b) of the Act and section 17 of the Regulations. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 8 of the Act. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See RGD5-2. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See RGD5-1. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See section 7(2)(b) of the Act and section 17 of the Regulations. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD3-21. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD3-24. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD4-3. Return to footnote 15 referrer
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The claimant worked 648 hours between June 1, 2024, and June 1, 2025, according to a Canada Revenue Agency ruling.
- The Commission confirmed that the claimant had 634 insurable hours within her qualifying period.
- The claimant needed 630 hours to qualify for benefits, based on the unemployment rate in her region.
- The claimant's appeal was allowed because she accumulated 634 hours, exceeding the 630 hours required.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant could not provide her pay stubs because her employer went bankrupt.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant was granted Employment Insurance (EI) benefits after proving she worked enough hours to qualify, despite her employer going bankrupt.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was over whether the claimant had worked enough hours to qualify for EI benefits when her employer's bankruptcy prevented her from providing necessary documentation.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the claimant, accepting a Canada Revenue Agency ruling that verified the claimant's hours worked, thus allowing her to qualify for EI benefits.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Employment Insurance Act, s. 7 and the Employment Insurance Regulations, s. 93 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the claimant had worked enough hours to qualify for EI benefits, as verified by a Canada Revenue Agency ruling.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the claimant, granting her Employment Insurance benefits.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may be able to qualify for EI benefits if they can prove they worked the required hours, even if their employer has gone bankrupt.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The Canada Revenue Agency ruling that verified the claimant's hours worked was crucial to the decision.