Claimant's Employment Insurance Appeal Rejected by Social Security Tribunal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Citation: SF  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  [NAME]  141 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [COUNSEL] under appeal: [NAME] 30, 2025 (GE-25-3344) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: May 8, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: May 13, 2026 File number: AD-26-102 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. The [NAME] didn’t make a reviewable error. Overview [ 2 ] The Claimant applied for Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) regular benefits on August 4, 2025. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided the Claimant didn’t have enough hours to qualify. [ 3 ] To qualify for [NAME] benefits you must have worked a certain number of hours within your qualifying period. How many hours someone needs is determined by the regional rate of unemployment (RRU). Footnote 1 [ 4 ] When the Claimant applied for [NAME] benefits, there was also a temporary [NAME] measure in place. This measure, effectively, would adjust the RRU so that it was easier to qualify for [NAME] benefits. The Commission said the Claimant’s RRU meant the Claimant needed 560 hours to qualify for [NAME] benefits. The Claimant didn’t have that many hours. [ 5 ] The Claimant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal) [NAME]. The Commission noted the temporary measure in its representations to the [NAME]. The [NAME] didn’t reference the temporary measure in its decision, but agreed with the Commission that the Claimant didn’t have enough hours to qualify for [NAME] benefits. [ 6 ] The Claimant appealed to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. Leave to appeal was granted because it wasn’t clear if the RRU included the temporary measure. [ 7 ] I have considered the Claimant and Commission’s arguments. I don’t find the [NAME] made any errors that would allow me to intervene (step in). That means I must dismiss the appeal. Issue [ 8 ] The issue in this appeal is: did the [NAME] make a reviewable error when it determined the Claimant’s regional rate of unemployment and how many hours he needed to qualify for [NAME] benefits? Analysis [ 9 ] I can only intervene if the [NAME] made an error. There are only certain errors I can consider. Briefly, I can intervene if the [NAME] made at least one of the following errors: Footnote 2 It acted unfairly in some way. It decided an issue it shouldn’t have, or didn’t decide an issue it should have. This is also called an error of jurisdiction. It made an error of law. It based its decision on an important error of fact. [ 10 ] The Claimant alleged the [NAME] made an error of law or a natural justice error. He said he was short the number of hours required due to circumstances beyond his control. The [NAME] didn’t make a reviewable error when it determined the Claimant’s regional rate of unemployment and how many hours he needed to qualify for [NAME] benefits [ 11 ] The Commission decided the [APPELLANT] was [NAME]. The unemployment rate was 9.7%, which meant he needed 560 hours to qualify for [NAME] benefits. Footnote 3 The Claimant hasn’t disputed that he only had 553 hours in his qualifying period. [ 12 ] The [APPELLANT] felt his claim should have been granted because he couldn’t get any more hours due to circumstances beyond his control. In other words, he felt his personal circumstances should outweigh the legal requirements. To qualify for [NAME] benefits, there are minimum thresholds. There is no way around that. [ 13 ] The [NAME] explained that one of the requirements to qualify for [NAME] benefits is having enough hours in the qualifying period. As the [NAME] said, the qualifying period is usually the 52 weeks before a benefit period would start. Footnote 4 [ 14 ] The [NAME] found the Claimant’s qualifying period was from August 4, 2024, to August 2, 2025. The [APPELLANT] agreed he only had 553 hours in his qualifying period. Footnote 5 [ 15 ] No one disputed the Claimant’s economic region is [NAME]. So, the question is only whether the correct percentage rate was used to figure out how many hours the Claimant needed to qualify for [NAME] benefits. [ 16 ] Employment Insurance Regulation 77.998 was a temporary measure in place between April 6, 2025, and October 11, 2025. That regulation was acknowledged by the Commission in their submissions to the [NAME]. Footnote 6 [ 17 ] This temporary measure was in place when the [APPELLANT] lost his job and applied for [NAME] benefits. The Commission took the position that the published rates were already adjusted. The Commission asked for an adjournment to research this issue which was granted. Both parties were given an opportunity to put in further arguments and a new hearing date was held. [ 18 ] The Appeal Division can’t consider new evidence unless it falls under an exception. Footnote 7 The exceptions to the [NAME] rule are: [NAME] background information; To bring procedural defects to the attention of the court; or To highlight the complete absence of evidence. [ 19 ] The Commission clarified that the rates published by [NAME] already included the temporary measure. I find this isn’t new evidence. This is a clarification of background information that was integral to understanding the present case. [ 20 ] The Commission provided information that the regional rate of unemployment for [NAME] when the Claimant applied for [NAME] benefits was 8.7%. Footnote 8 For the same timeframe, the posted regional rate of unemployment is shown as 9.7%. Footnote 9 The Commission provided proof with a [NAME] footnote that confirms the posted rates include the temporary measure increase. Footnote 10 [ 21 ] I find the information provided by the Commission shows the correct RRU of 9.7% was used. This means the Claimant needed 560 hours in his qualifying period. Unfortunately, the Claimant only had 553 hours in the qualifying period. [ 22 ] The law is clear. Even if someone is one hour short, they won’t qualify for [NAME] benefits. Footnote 11 The [APPELLANT] agrees he didn’t have enough hours in his qualifying period. So, this means the Claimant doesn’t have the required number of hours. There is nothing in the [NAME] that allows for this requirement to be waived. [ 23 ] The [APPELLANT] didn’t have any additional arguments about any other mistake the [NAME] may have made. Conclusion [ 24 ] The appeal is dismissed. The [NAME] didn’t make a reviewable error. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 7(2)(b) of the Employment Insurance Act and section 17 of the Employment Insurance Regulations. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD3-18 of the Commission’s Reconsideration File. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See the [NAME] decision at paragraphs 15 to 17. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See the [NAME] decision at paragraph 21. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD4-2 of the Commission’s Representations to the [NAME]. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2022  FCA  157 at paragraph 37. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See AD9-14 the actual regional rate of unemployment. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See AD9-4 the adjusted regional rate of unemployment. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See AD9-12 the footnote showing the temporary measure was considered. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See Canada ( [NAME])  c  [NAME] , 2001  FCA  304 at paragraph 2. Return to footnote 11 referrer