EI Benefit Denial Due to Employer Provided Cellphone
📌 In brief
The claimant applied for Employment Insurance benefits several times but was denied because he continued to receive benefits from his employer, including a cellphone and vehicle. The Social Security Tribunal ruled that these benefits were considered earnings, disqualifying the claimant from receiving Employment Insurance benefits.
⚖️ Legal holding
An individual is not entitled to Employment Insurance benefits if they continue to receive benefits from their employer.
📖 What the law says
This regulation defines when an interruption of earnings happens, which affects eligibility for Employment Insurance. It considers situations where an employee stops working for a week or more without pay.
This section provides definitions for terms used in the Employment Insurance Regulations, including 'employment' and 'income'. These definitions help determine what counts as income for Employment Insurance purposes.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's appeal for Employment Insurance benefits was denied due to ongoing benefits from the employer.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant applied for Employment Insurance benefits multiple times, but was denied due to continuing to receive benefits from his employer, such as a cellphone and vehicle, which were considered earnings under the Employment Insurance Regulations.
📚 Full judgment Official document
[TRANSLATION] Citation: MB v [NAME] Commission , 2026 SST 28 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 30, 2025 (GE-25-2974) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 19, 2026 File number: AD-26-40 On this page Decision Overview Issue Preliminary remarks Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead. Overview [ 2 ] The Applicant (Claimant) applied for [NAME] ( EI ) regular benefits on December 24, 2018; December 23, 2019; January 14, 2021; December 27, 2021; and January 3, 2023. This was after he stopped working because of a shortage of work. The Respondent (Commission) established a benefit period for each of these claims. [ 3 ] When he applied for benefits on January 3, 2023, the Claimant reported that he was related to the owner of the business he worked for. He didn’t report this when he made his earlier claim on December 27, 2021. After receiving this information, the Commission started an investigation and reconsidered the Claimant’s five benefit periods. [ 4 ] On January 21, 2025, the Commission told the Claimant that he didn’t have a period without work and that he wasn’t entitled to benefits for the five periods. The Commission told him that it was cancelling the five benefit periods that it had previously established. It imposed a monetary penalty on him and issued a notice of violation. On reconsideration, the Commission maintained the cancellation of the benefit periods. It replaced the monetary penalty with a warning letter and removed the notice of violation. The Claimant disagreed and appealed to the Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] The General Division found that the Claimant always used a cellphone that his employer provided him, even during periods when there was a shortage of work. He also used a vehicle that the employer provided. It decided that these benefits were considered earnings under the [NAME] ( EI Regulations). The General Division found that no earnings stopped for seven days in a row, so the benefit periods had to be cancelled. But it removed the penalty that the Commission imposed. [ 6 ] The Claimant is asking the Appeal Division for permission to appeal the General Division decision. He argues that he uses two personal vehicles while he is unemployed. The truck allows him to go to work when he has to work a few hours before he goes back full-time. He criticizes the General Division for not communicating its decision to him within the promised 10 days. [ 7 ] 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. [ 8 ] I am not giving the Claimant permission to appeal. Issue [ 9 ] Does the Claimant’s appeal have a reasonable chance of success based on a reviewable error the General Division may have made? Preliminary remarks [ 10 ] In deciding whether to give permission to appeal, I have to look at the evidence that was before the General Division. The Appeal Division doesn’t accept new evidence—except in rare circumstances that don’t apply in this case. Footnote 1 Analysis [ 11 ] 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 could not 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. [ 12 ] 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. [ 13 ] 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 [ 14 ] The Claimant argues that he uses two personal vehicles while he is unemployed. The truck allows him to go to work when he has to work a few hours before he goes back full-time. He criticizes the General Division for not communicating its decision to him within the promised 10 days. [ 15 ] The General Division found that the Claimant used the cellphone that the employer provided year-round, even when the business closed. He recognized that he was using it for work and for personal reasons. Footnote 3 [ 16 ] I note that the evidence before the General Division shows that using the cellphone is connected to or related to the work the Claimant did. At the very least, there is a clear link between the job and the benefit he received. [ 17 ] The Appeal Division established that using a cellphone—even if the amount is small—still represents a cost. For earnings to have stopped, the Claimant has to not receive benefits that have a daily value for him. [ 18 ] I see no reviewable error made by the General Division in its interpretation of sections 14(1) and 35(10)(d) of the EI Regulations. More specifically, it decided that earnings hadn’t stopped because the Claimant kept benefitting from using a cellphone he had after his employer laid him off. Footnote 4 [ 19 ] The Claimant argues that he uses two personal vehicles while he is unemployed. The truck allows him to go to work when he has to work a few hours before he goes back full-time. [ 20 ] But in an interview the Commission held, the Claimant stated that he used the company vehicle every day, even on weekends. He also stated that he used it for personal reasons. Footnote 5 [ 21 ] The Claimant’s mother also stated in an interview the Commission held that the Claimant still used the company vehicle even while the business was closed. Footnote 6 [ 22 ] As the General Division decided, using the company’s truck and cellphone prevented earnings from stopping. This is set out in the EI Regulations. [ 23 ] It was also decided that the work a claimant did voluntarily for their employer after being dismissed or laid off doesn’t result in earnings having stopped under the EI Act. Footnote 7 The Claimant acknowledged that he kept working a few hours a week for his employer while waiting to go back full-time. He answered calls and emails during the period it was closed. Footnote 8 [ 24 ] Finally, the Claimant criticizes the General Division for not communicating its decision to him within 10 days. [ 25 ] At the end of the hearing, the General Division member explained that she would give her decision within 10 business days of receiving the Commission’s additional submissions. [ 26 ] The Commission filed its additional submissions on December 15, 2025. Considering the two-day holiday break between December 25 and 26, the General Division member was within the time frame she had set. [ 27 ] In any event, I find that the Claimant had every opportunity to argue his case before the General Division and that he suffered no harm. [ 28 ] 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. [ 29 ] The Claimant hasn’t raised any issue that could justify setting aside the decision under review. Conclusion [ 30 ] Permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead. Footnotes Footnote 1 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FCA 157. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See paragraph 40 of the General Division decision at GD3-471. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 [NAME] v [NAME] Commission , 2019 SST 577; [NAME] v [NAME] Commission , 2019 SST 576; [NAME] v [NAME] Commission , 2017 CanLII 31736 ( SST ); [NAME] v [NAME] Commission , 2016 CanLII 59202 ( SST ), [NAME] v [NAME] Commission , 2017 CanLII 31773 ( SST ); [NAME] v [NAME] Commission , 2018 SST 753 (CanLII); and [NAME] v [NAME] Commission , 2018 SST 754 (CanLII). Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD3-428. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD3-396. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See CUB 18989, CUB 14230A, CUB 13130, and CUB 11215. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD3-427, GD3-434, and GD3-465. Return to footnote 8 referrer
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant was denied Employment Insurance benefits because he continued to receive benefits from his employer, including a cellphone and vehicle.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant was eligible for Employment Insurance benefits given that he received ongoing benefits from his employer.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the claimant was not entitled to Employment Insurance benefits because he continued to receive benefits from his employer, which were considered earnings under the Employment Insurance Regulations.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Employment Insurance Regulations, sections 14(1) and 35(10)(d), were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the claimant continued to receive benefits from his employer, which disqualified him from Employment Insurance benefits.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may not be eligible for Employment Insurance benefits if they continue to receive benefits from their employer.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered included interviews with the claimant and his mother, and the claimant's use of a cellphone and vehicle provided by his employer.