EI Appeal Refused Due to Lack of Insurable Hours

OUTCOME: Refused

Citation: PN  v  Canada [NAME] Commission , 2026  SST  273 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated March 9, 2026 (GE-26-559) Tribunal member: [NAME] date: March 27, 2026 File number: AD-26-272 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. [APPELLANT].’s appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] [APPELLANT]. is the Claimant. She applied for [NAME] regular benefits on May 20, 2025. [ 3 ] The Canada [NAME] Commission (Commission) decided that the Claimant didn’t have enough hours of insurable employment during the qualifying period to get benefits. It found that she needed 560 hours but only had 505 hours. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] The General Division concluded the same and dismissed the appeal. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The Claimant is now asking for permission to appeal and argues that the General Division made a legal error and important factual error. Footnote 3 [ 6 ] I am denying permission to appeal because the Claimant’s arguments don’t show that she has an arguable case upon which the appeal might succeed. So, I can’t give her permission to appeal. Issue [ 7 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made a legal error and an important factual error when it decided the Claimant’s benefit period couldn’t be established because she didn’t have enough hours to get regular benefits? Analysis [ 8 ] The law says that I can consider four types of errors, and they include, a failure to follow a fair process, jurisdictional, legal, and important factual errors. Footnote 4 [ 9 ] I can only give the Claimant permission to appeal if there’s an “arguable case” that the General Division made a reviewable error that gives her appeal a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 5 [ 10 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division made a legal error and an important factual error, so that’s what I will focus on. [ 11 ] I’ve looked at the General Division’s decision, the Claimant’s application to the Appeal Division, listened to the audio recording and reviewed all of the file documents before making my decision. I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal The Claimant’s arguments to the Appeal Division [ 12 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division didn’t follow made a legal error and important factual error. I’ve summarized her main arguments as follows. [ 13 ] The employer violated her human rights, so she lost her job before she could work the extra hours. And if she had not been terminated, she would have likely quit her job, go on a medical leave or take a leave of absence. There was also a failure to accommodate by the employer. [ 14 ] The [APPELLANT] acknowledges that she doesn’t have enough hours, but has met all of the other criteria, including searching for work and applying for jobs, etc. She has paid EI contributions via payroll deductions, so she says it is her right to get benefits. And if she can’t get benefits, then her contributions should be refunded. [ 15 ] The [APPELLANT] also referred to the 30-day filing deadline for requesting a reconsideration of the Commission’s decision dealing with a different legal issue (voluntary leave). There is no arguable case that the General Division made any legal errors or important factual errors [ 16 ] A legal error happens when the General Division misinterprets a law, doesn’t follow a court decision it has to follow, or doesn’t give adequate reasons for its decision. [ 17 ] The General Division makes an important factual error when it reaches its decision by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. Footnote 6 [ 18 ] On February 7, 2026, the Commission decided that a benefit period could not be established because the [APPELLANT] hadn’t shown she had enough hours to qualify for benefits. Footnote 7 That’s the reconsideration decision the Claimant appealed to the General Division. Footnote 8 [ 19 ] The only issue before the General Division was whether the Claimant had enough hours of insurable employment to establish a claim for regular benefits. Footnote 9 [ 20 ] The General Division found that the Claimant had applied for benefits on May 20, 2025. Footnote 10 It found that, to qualify for regular benefits, a person living in an economic region (Toronto) with an unemployment rate of 9.6% had to have at least 560 insurable hours when applying for benefits. Footnote 11 This was not disputed by the Claimant. Footnote 12 [ 21 ] The General Division concluded that the Claimant only had 505 hours during her 52-week qualifying period (May 5, 2024, to May 3, 2025). Footnote 13 That’s consistent with the Record of Employment ( ROE ) in the file which shows that the Claimant only had 505 hours for the period she worked from November 5, 2024, to April 24, 2025. Footnote 14 [ 22 ] The General Division also considered the Claimant’s argument about hours from a previously established claim. It found there were no additional insurable hours in her current qualifying period based on the record before it. Footnote 15 [ 23 ] The General Division correctly stated that it had no discretion or flexibility in applying the law, even for compassionate cases. Footnote 16 The number of hours required doesn’t allow any discrepancy and provides no discretion. This applies even in cases where a person is short by one hour. Footnote 17 [ 24 ] The General Division had no legal authority to address her arguments about her former employer relating to human rights, termination and failure to accommodate. There are other forums where the Claimant can raise labour-related issues. [ 25 ] As noted above, the only issue before the General Division was whether she had enough hours to establish a benefit period. The other issues the Claimant is raising about her availability for work, late reconsideration request and voluntary leave weren’t before the General Division. Footnote 18 [ 26 ] The Appeal Division’s mandate is limited to determining whether the General Division made a reviewable error. Footnote 19 The Claimant may not agree with the General Division’s decision, but a disagreement with the outcome isn’t a reviewable error. [ 27 ] I see no arguable case that the General Division made any legal errors. Footnote 20 It correctly stated the law and relied on relevant case law in its decision. Footnote 21 [ 28 ] I also see no arguable case that it made any important factual errors. Footnote 22 Its key findings are consistent with the evidence before it. Since the Claimant hadn’t shown she had enough hours to get regular benefits, she hasn’t met the requirements set out in law. Footnote 23 [ 29 ] There are no other reasons for giving the Claimant permission to appeal. I didn’t find any relevant evidence that the General Division might have ignored or misinterpreted. Footnote 24 [ 30 ] [NAME] is not a statutory right. It is an insurance plan and like other insurance plans, you have to meet certain requirements to receive benefits. And the Tribunal has no authority to refund the Claimant’s EI contributions to-date. Conclusion [ 31 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. It has no reasonable chance of success. Footnotes Footnote 1 See Commission’s initial and reconsideration decision at pages GD3-30 to GD3-31 and GD3-49. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See General Division decision at pages AD1-12 to AD1-19. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See Application to the Appeal Division at pages AD1-1 to AD1-19. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 58(1) of the  Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General),  2016  FC  11 at paragraph 12 and sections 56(1) and 58(2) of the  DESD  Act. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 This is a plain language wording of section 58(1)(c) of the  DESD  Act, which says this happens when the General Division has “based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.” Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See pages GD3-30 to GD3-31 and GD3-49. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See pages GD2-1 to GD2-4. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 7 of the [NAME] ( EI Act) sets out the conditions that must be met in order to receive benefits. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See paragraph 3 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See paragraphs 14–16 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See paragraph 16 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See paragraphs 16, 19 and 26 of the General Division decision and section 8(1) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See pages GD3-17 to GD3-18. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See paragraphs 23–25 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See paragraphs 27–28 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2001  FCA  304. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See sections 112 and 113 of the [NAME] ( EI Act). If the Commission has issued a reconsideration decision or a decision in relation to further time to make a request, the Claimant can appeal it to the appeal it to the Tribunal. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 [NAME]   v   Canada (Attorney General),  2016  FC  1367 and  [NAME]   v   Canada (Attorney General), 2017  FC  354. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See section 58(1)(b) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See paragraphs 11–13 and 27 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See section 7(2) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 The Federal Court has suggested such a review in decisions like  [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2016  FC  874 and  [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General),  2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 24 referrer