EI Sickness Benefits Appeal Denied Due to Insufficient Hours

Citation: [NAME]  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  56 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated November 7, 2025 (GE-25-2975) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 27, 2026 File number: AD-25-785 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matters Issues I am not giving the Applicant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. The appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] M. H. is the Applicant. He applied for Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) regular benefits on August 1, 2025. Footnote 1 The Applicant doesn’t dispute that he hasn’t worked since 2021. [ 3 ] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) said the Applicant didn’t qualify for [NAME] benefits because he didn’t have any hours in his qualifying period. Footnote 2 The Applicant asked the Commission to reconsider. Footnote 3 The Applicant said he wasn’t medically able to continue working. [ 4 ] The Commission clarified with the Applicant that he was seeking [NAME] sickness benefits. Footnote 4 The Commission noted that because the Applicant had been ill, the qualifying period could be extended from 52 weeks to 104 weeks. Yet, because the Applicant hadn’t worked since 2021, he didn’t have any hours to qualify for [NAME] benefits. The Commission maintained its refusal of [NAME] benefits. Footnote 5 [ 5 ] The Applicant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal General Division. The General Division formally extended the Applicant’s qualifying period to 104 weeks. But it agreed with the Commission that the Applicant didn’t have enough hours to qualify for [NAME] benefits. [ 6 ] The Applicant has asked for permission to appeal to the Appeal Division. I am denying the Applicant’s request for permission to appeal because there is no reasonable chance of success. Preliminary matters The Applicant didn’t specify an error the General Division made [ 7 ] On December 8, 2025, the Applicant emailed the Tribunal and said he wished to appeal to the Appeal Division. The Applicant didn’t fill out the Application to the Appeal Division form. So, it wasn’t clear what appeal grounds the Applicant was raising. [ 8 ] On January 6, 2026, I wrote the Applicant and explained, “leave to appeal can only be granted if you raise an arguable case about how the General Division made an error (mistake). This means that you need to explain HOW the General Division made an error.” Footnote 6 I explained the legal errors that the Appeal Division can consider. [ 9 ] The Applicant sent a response. Footnote 7 It wasn’t clear from the Applicant’s response if he was saying that he had accumulated hours during the qualifying period. So, I sent an additional letter to the Applicant on January 8, 2026. Footnote 8 The Applicant clarified his position. Footnote 9 All information sent by the Applicant has been considered in this decision. New evidence [ 10 ] The Applicant said his Application to the Appeal Division is based on significant new medical evidence. He says, “this new evidence directly affects the key issues of my ability to work, my medical condition, and the timeline of my injury”. Footnote 10 [ 11 ] There are limited circumstances when the Appeal Division can consider new evidence. It typically has to fall under an exception. Footnote 11 I don’t need to evaluate whether the Applicant’s new medical evidence falls under an exception. That’s because the Applicant is trying to demonstrate that he has a medical condition, how it affected his ability to work, and the timeline related to that. The General Division accepted the Applicant had a chronic medical condition. Footnote 12 Due to the Applicant’s illness, the General Division extended the Applicant’s qualifying period to the maximum allowable by law. Footnote 13 [ 12 ] The General Division accepted what the Applicant said. Therefore, the new evidence isn’t necessary to consider. Issues [ 13 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Is there an arguable case the General Division made an error of law with the way it applied the Employment Insurance Act ( [NAME] Act) ? b) Is there an arguable case the General Division made an important error of fact when it found the Applicant couldn’t work due to a chronic condition and also found the Applicant didn’t have any insurable hours within the extended qualifying period? c) Is there an arguable case the General Division made a reviewable error when it didn’t meaningfully analyze the Applicant’s medical evidence? d) Is there an arguable case the General Division didn’t provide the Applicant with a fair process? I am not giving the Applicant permission to appeal [ 14 ] An appeal can only go ahead if the Appeal Division gives an applicant permission to appeal. Footnote 14 I have to be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 15 There has to be an arguable ground upon which the appeal might succeed. Footnote 16 [ 15 ] There are only certain grounds of appeal that the Appeal Division can consider. Footnote 17 Briefly, the Applicant has to show the General Division did one of the following: 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. [ 16 ] So, for the Applicant’s appeal to go ahead, I have to find there is a reasonable chance of success on any of those grounds. There is no arguable case the General Division made an error of law with the law it applied the [NAME] Act [ 17 ] The Applicant applied for [NAME] benefits in August 2025. He last worked in March 2021. These facts aren’t disputed. The General Division accepted the reason the Applicant hadn’t worked since 2021 was due to a serious chronic injury. Footnote 18 [ 18 ] The Applicant says the General Division erred in law, “by applying the qualifying period provisions of the Employment Insurance Act in a purely mechanical manner, without properly analyzing how section 8 of the Act applies in cases of medically established incapacity.” Footnote 19 [ 19 ] Some examples of an error of law are: if the General Division doesn’t apply the correct legal test; if the General Division uses the correct legal test but doesn’t apply it correctly. [ 20 ] The Applicant acknowledges the General Division extended his qualifying period. It increased it from the standard 52 weeks before his benefit period start date to 104 weeks. Footnote 20 The Applicant says the General Division didn’t analyze whether it was “legally reasonable” to conclude that he could have accumulated insurable hours during his qualifying period. [ 21 ] The General Division extended the Applicant’s qualifying period to the maximum allowable by law. Footnote 21 The General Division first reviewed how one qualifies for [NAME] benefits. Footnote 22 It then examined what the Applicant’s standard qualifying period would be. Footnote 23 It explained when a qualifying period can be extended. Footnote 24 The General Division decided the Applicant’s qualifying period could be extended. It extended the qualifying period to the maximum allowable by law, which is 104 weeks. Footnote 25 So, the Applicant’s new extended qualifying period was from July 30, 2023, to July 26, 2025. [ 22 ] After extending the qualifying period, the General Division then looked to see if the Applicant had any insurable hours within that timeframe. I understand the Applicant’s position is that he wasn’t medically able to work during that time. So, he acknowledges he has no insurable hours during the extended qualifying period. [ 23 ] To qualify for [NAME] benefits, even sickness benefits, there are minimum thresholds. The law requires a claimant to have 600 insurable hours within the qualifying period to receive [NAME] benefits. The General Division applied the law correctly. It decided first if the Applicant’s qualifying period could be extended. It next decided if there were any insurable hours within that same period. Section 8 of the [NAME] Act sets out a maximum extension which is what the General Division allowed. There is no arguable case the General Division made an error of law. It applied the law as it’s written, as it must do. [ 24 ] Employment insurance benefits aren’t meant to address extended medical incapacity. The Applicant may wish to seek legal advice to find out if he may be eligible for any other kinds of social benefits. There is no arguable case the General Division made an important error of fact when it found the Applicant couldn’t work due to a chronic condition and also found the Applicant didn’t have any insurable hours within the extended qualifying period [ 25 ] An error of fact happens when the General Division makes its decision based on an erroneous (wrong) finding of fact that was “made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it”. Footnote 26 This means the General Division had to ignore, misunderstand or overlook the evidence in some way. [ 26 ] The Applicant says the General Division made “internally inconsistent” findings of fact. He says, logically, he can’t be found to have a medical condition that prevented him from working and also be expected to have accumulated insurable hours in the same timeframe. [ 27 ] Again, [NAME] benefits are meant to address temporary income support. The General Division’s decision isn’t factually inconsistent. These are two separate findings. First, that the Applicant had a medical condition that prevented him from working. Second, that during his qualifying period he didn’t have any insurable hours that would allow him to qualify for [NAME] benefits. There is no arguable case that these findings together are important error of facts. There is no arguable case the General Division made a reviewable error when it didn’t meaningfully analyze the Applicant’s medical evidence [ 28 ] The Applicant says the General Division didn’t meaningfully analyze the Applicant’s medical documentation. He says this is a reviewable error because the medical evidence explains why he wouldn’t be able to work and accumulate insurable hours. [ 29 ] The General Division ([NAME]) doesn’t have to analyze the Applicant’s medical documentation. The General Division isn’t deciding if the Applicant has any ability to carry out some work. The General Division isn’t deciding if the Applicant has functional limitations. The General Division accepted the Applicant’s evidence that he couldn’t work due to a serious chronic injury. This was enough to extend the Applicant’s qualifying period. No further analyzation was necessary. [ 30 ] The Applicant, just like any other claimant, still has to show he meets the minimum threshold to qualify for [NAME] sickness benefits. In this case, the Applicant needed 600 insurable hours and had zero. These are the rules required to qualify for sickness benefits. There is no arguable case the General Division made an error in this regard. There is no arguable case the General Division didn’t provide a fair process [ 31 ] A fair process is also called natural justice. The principles of natural justice include making sure parties have a fair opportunity to present their case. [ 32 ] The Applicant noted in his application to the General Division that he preferred to have a hearing in-writing. Footnote 27 The Applicant now says that given the complexity of the medical and legal issues, the hearing shouldn’t have been held this way. [ 33 ] Respectfully, I disagree. The Applicant’s situation isn’t complex. The General Division looked at the qualifying period and whether it could be extended. It extended his qualifying period to the maximum allowable in law. It was then determined if the Applicant had any insurable hours in that timeframe. There was nothing further the General Division could have done. [ 34 ] The Applicant didn’t dispute that in the extended qualifying period he didn’t have any insurable hours. There isn’t a legal mechanism, within the [NAME] Act, to allow [NAME] benefits on compassionate grounds. In this case, I don’t find there is an arguable case the Applicant was denied a fair process when the hearing proceeded in writing as he requested. [ 35 ] As noted above, the Applicant may wish to get some legal advice to see if he may qualify for any other type of social assistance. Unfortunately, because he couldn’t accumulate insurable hours within his extended qualifying period, he can’t qualify for [NAME] benefits. There are no additional errors in the General Division decision [ 36 ] Because the Applicant is self-represented, I reviewed the file, and looked at the decision the Applicant is appealing. I haven’t found any reviewable error that the General Division may have made. Footnote 28 Conclusion [ 37 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD3-15, the Applicant’s application for Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) benefits dated August 1, 2025. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD3-24, the Commission’s letter to the Applicant that he didn’t qualify for [NAME] benefits dated August 26, 2025. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD3-26, the Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration to the Commission. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD3-47, the Commission’s record of a phone conversation with the Applicant on October 21, 2025. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD3-49, the Commission’s denial of [NAME] benefits letter dated October 21, 2025. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 This was in a letter to the Applicant dated January 6, 2026. Under section 4 of the Notice of Appeal form to the Appeal Division, it explains that permission to appeal must first be granted. It says there must be an arguable case the General Division made an error and lists the errors that can be considered. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See AD1A dated January 7, 2026, where the Applicant explained his reasons for appeal. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See AD2 the Appeal Division letter dated January 8, 2026. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See AD3 the Applicant’s clarification email dated January 8, 2026. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See AD1-2 of the Applicant’s email to the Appeal Division dated December 8, 2025. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  157 at paragraph 37. The exceptions to the general rule are: general background information; to bring a procedural defect to the attention of the Tribunal; or to highlight the complete absence of evidence. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See the General Division decision at paragraph 6. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 17 to 21 and section 8(7) of the Employment Insurance Act ( [NAME] Act). Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See section 56(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See section 58(2) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2024  FC  928 at paragraph 13; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2018  FC  498; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2016  FC  115 at paragraph 12; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2017  FC  259 at paragraph 16. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. The grounds listed are also known as errors. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 6, 20, 22, 24, and 26. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See AD1A-2 of the Applicant’s explanation of errors he believes the General Division made. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See the General Division decision at paragraph 21. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See section 8(7) of the [NAME] Act . Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 10 to 14. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 15 and 16. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See the General Division decision at paragraphs 17 to 21. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See the General Division decision at paragraph 21. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD2-3 of the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal to the General Division. The format of a hearing is typically the appellant’s choice as noted in section 2 of the Social Security Tribunal Regulations, 2022 . Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 The Federal Court has said I must do this in decisions like [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  874 and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 28 referrer