Eligibility for Employment Insurance Benefits Denied Due to Insufficient Job Seeking Efforts

Citation: KS  v  [NAME] Commission , 2026  SST  339 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated March 3, 2026 (GE-26-231) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing dates: June 10, 2026 and June 17, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: June 19, 2026 File number: AD-26-266 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matters Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The General Division made a legal error because it needed to consider and decide whether K. S. had made reasonable and customary efforts to obtain suitable employment. [ 2 ] To fix the error, I will substitute with my own decision. K. S. hasn’t shown that she is capable of and available for work and unable to obtain suitable employment. And she hasn’t shown that she made reasonable and customary efforts to find suitable employment. This means she can’t get benefits. Footnote 1 The appeal is dismissed. Overview [ 3 ] K. S. is the Claimant, and she worked at a [COMPANY] as an Educational Assistant. When she stopped working, she submitted a renewal application for benefits in July 2025. Footnote 2 A benefit period was established effective June 22, 2025. [ 4 ] The [NAME] Commission (Commission) decided that she was disentitled from getting benefits because she hadn’t proven she was available for work. Footnote 3 [ 5 ] The Claimant appealed that decision to the General Division, arguing that she should be able to get benefits for the summer months of July to August 2025 when she wasn’t working. Footnote 4 [ 6 ] The General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal. It concluded the same: she hadn’t shown she was available for work, so she couldn’t get benefits. Footnote 5 The Claimant appealed that decision to the General Division arguing that it made errors. Footnote 6 Preliminary matters [ 7 ] This hearing was scheduled to be heard on June 10, 2026. Footnote 7 Both parties attended. At the hearing, the Claimant explained that English wasn’t her first language and she might have difficulty understanding legal terms. I decided to reschedule the hearing to another date so that I could arrange for an interpreter to attend at the next hearing date. [ 8 ] The hearing was rescheduled to June 17, 2026. Footnote 8 Both parties attended and an interpreter was available for the Claimant as needed throughout the hearing. Issue [ 9 ] The issue in this appeal is: a) Did the General Division make a legal error by not considering and deciding whether the Claimant had made reasonable and customary efforts to obtain suitable employment? b) If so, how should the error be fixed? Analysis [ 10 ] The law sets out the types of errors that the Appeal Division can consider. Footnote 9 If an error is established, then I can intervene. Footnote 10 [ 11 ] The General Division makes a legal error when it doesn’t apply the law, misinterprets the law, uses an incorrect legal test, or doesn’t follow a court decision it has to follow. [ 12 ] A person who wants to receive regular benefits has to show that they’re capable of and available for work but aren’t able to find a suitable job. If they can’t prove this, then they can be disentitled to benefits under section 18(1)(a) of the Employment Insurance Act . [ 13 ] The law doesn’t define what it means when it says “available.” But the Federal Court of Appeal ( FCA ) in a decision called  [NAME]  v  [NAME] and Immigration Commission  has provided some guidance when assessing a person’s availability for work (i.e., there are three factors to consider: these are often referred to as the “[NAME]” factors). Footnote 11 [ 14 ] The Commission can also ask a person to prove that they made reasonable and customary efforts to obtain suitable employment (this is s. 50(8) of the [NAME] Act). “Reasonable and customary efforts” are set out in s.9.001 of the  Employment Insurance Regulations (Regulations). Footnote 12 And if a person doesn’t comply, then they can be disentitled to benefits under s.50(1) of the [NAME] Act. The General Division decided the Claimant hadn’t proven her availability for work [ 15 ] The General Division then reviewed s.18(1)(a) of the [NAME] Act and the three [NAME] factors. It made the following key findings: a) The Claimant didn’t have a desire to return to the labour market as soon as a suitable job was offered. Footnote 13 b) The Claimant didn’t make enough effort to find a suitable job because some of the jobs she applied for weren’t suitable; some of her efforts only started midway through the summer and she didn’t keep a proper job search list. Footnote 14 c) The Claimant set personal conditions that might unduly limit her chances of returning to the labour market because she was only focused on jobs in education with a similar pay rate and on part-time roles only. Footnote 15 [ 16 ] The General Division concluded that the Claimant hadn’t shown she was capable of and available for work and unable to find a suitable job, so she was disentitled to benefits from June 22, 2025. In a footnote, it noted that it made that finding based on s.18(1)(a). Footnote 16 The Claimant and the Commission say that the General Division made errors [ 17 ] The Claimant disagrees with the General Division’s decision. Her arguments were mainly focused on re-arguing her case and that she should be able to get benefits for the summer of 2025. She did point out a minor factual error in the General Division’s decision. Footnote 17 [ 18 ] The Claimant made arguments about other things too. She explained that she pays [NAME] premiums and ought to be able to get benefits for the summer months when she’s off from work. As well, she mentioned that there were issues with her former employer and someone should call them to investigate. [ 19 ] The Commission says that the General Division may have made a legal error in its decision by not clearly addressing s.50(1) and s.50(8) of the [NAME] Act, as well as s.9.001 of the [NAME]. [ 20 ] At the same time, the Commission says that I can infer that the General Division did consider whether the Claimant made reasonable and customary efforts to obtain suitable employment. It points out that there is some overlap in the second [NAME] factor which looks at job seeking efforts more generally. The General Division made a legal error because it didn’t consider and decide whether the Claimant’s efforts to find a job were reasonable and customary [ 21 ] The Commission in this case decided that the Claimant was disentitled from getting benefits from June 22, 2025. Footnote 18 Their written submissions to the General Division indicate that she was disentitled to getting benefits under both provisions: s.18(1)(a) and 50(1) of the [NAME] Act. Footnote 19 [ 22 ] The General Division correctly identified the relevant legal provisions and case law in its decision. Footnote 20 [ 23 ] I find that the General Division made a legal error because it didn’t consider and address whether the Claimant made reasonable and customary efforts to obtain suitable employment based on s.50(8). Footnote 21 It was required to do so because the Commission had disentitled the Claimant under s.50(1) as well. And I can’t assume that it considered this provision because it specifically wrote in its decision that the Claimant was disentitled to benefits based on s.18(1)(a). Footnote 22 [ 24 ] The Claimant made arguments about other errors that I’d like to address briefly. The General Division correctly stated that [NAME] is an insurance plan, and you have to meet all conditions to get benefits. Footnote 23 Put another way, just because she paid [NAME] premiums that doesn’t mean she will automatically be entitled to benefits. [ 25 ] As well, a disagreement with the outcome isn’t a reviewable error and I can’t reweigh the evidence in order to come to a different conclusion that is more favourable. And finally, the Tribunal doesn’t have any power to investigate things that happened with her former employer. [ 26 ] Since I’ve found one legal error, I can intervene on that basis, and I don’t need to address any other errors. Fixing the error [ 27 ] To fix the error, I can send the matter to the Board of Appeal or give the decision the General Division should have given. Footnote 24 In doing so, I can make any necessary factual findings. Footnote 25 [ 28 ] The parties agree that I should substitute with my own decision and give the decision the General Division should have given. They agree and I accept that they had a full and fair opportunity before the General Division and that the record is complete. So, I will substitute with my own decision and give the decision the General Division should have given. The Claimant hasn’t shown that she was available for work and hasn’t shown that she made reasonable and customary efforts to obtain employment [ 29 ] I have to decide whether the Claimant was capable of and available for work and unable to obtain suitable employment and if she made reasonable and customary efforts to find suitable employment based on s.18(1)(a) and s.50(8) of the [NAME] Act. [ 30 ] First, I am adopting the General Division’s findings on s.18(1)(a) of the [NAME]  Act and the three [NAME] factors set out in paragraphs 17 to 31 of the General Division’s decision. I agree with its reasoning and its findings are unaffected by the error I found. This means the Claimant hasn’t shown that she was capable of and available for work but wasn’t able to find a suitable job, so she is disentitled under s.18(1)(a) of the [NAME] Act. [ 31 ] Second, I’ve considered the job seeking efforts set out in s.9.001 of the [NAME]. The evidence shows that the Claimant’s job seeking efforts included sending emails inquiring about jobs, applying for three jobs and being interviewed. Footnote 26 [ 32 ] In my view, the Claimant’s efforts to obtain a job were not reasonable and customary for the following reasons: Her efforts were not sustained because she only applied for three part-time jobs. Footnote 27 She was limiting her job searching efforts because she was expecting to go back to work at the end of the summer. She didn’t keep a detailed job record of her efforts, so it wasn’t clear when she applied for the jobs. One of the emails she provided shows that she inquired about work at a place that was closed for the summer and didn’t have an active job posting. Footnote 28 There were other emails to places that didn’t have job postings. Footnote 29 She provided a list of job alerts sent to her email from the “[NAME]” website, but it was dated in December 2025, so that wasn’t helpful, given the relevant period she wants benefits for is the summer of 2025. Footnote 30 [ 33 ] I find that the Claimant hasn’t shown that she made reasonable and customary efforts to obtain suitable employment, so she is disentitled under s.50(1) of the [NAME] Act. Conclusion [ 34 ] The General Division made a legal error because it didn’t consider and address whether she made reasonable and customary efforts to obtain a job. I have corrected that error and substituted with my own decision. [ 35 ] The Claimant is disentitled from getting benefits based on s.18(1)(a) and s.50(1) of the [NAME] Act from June 22, 2025 (the date her benefit period became effective). This means she can’t get benefits for the summer of 2025 like she wanted. Footnotes Footnote 1 See sections 18(1)(a) and 50(1) of the Employment Insurance Act ( [NAME] Act). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See renewal application at pages GD3-46 to GD3-58. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See Commission’s initial and reconsideration decision at pages GD3-69 and GD3-79. She was disentitled to benefits under sections 18(1)(a) and 50(1) of the Employment Insurance Act ( [NAME] Act). Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See page GD2-6. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See General Division decision at pages AD1A-1 to AD1A-6. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See Application to the Appeal Division at pages AD1-1 to AD1-7. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See pages AD0-1 to AD0-3. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See pages AD0A-1 to AD0A-3. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See section 59 of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [NAME]   v   [NAME] and Immigration Commission , A-56-96 and A-57-96. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 Section 9.001 states that its criteria are for the purpose of section 50(8) of the  [NAME]  Act. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See paragraphs 19–21 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See paragraphs 22–28 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See paragraph 29–31 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See paragraphs 32–34 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See paragraph 8 of the General Division decision. It wrote “2004” instead of 2024. This was a minor factual error. The General Division didn’t base its decision on this error. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See pages GD3-69 and GD3-79. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See Commission’s written arguments before the General Division at pages GD4-1 to GD4-12. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See paragraphs 11 and 17–18 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See section 58(1)(b) of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See paragraph 32 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See paragraph 33 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See sections 54.5(1) and 59(1) of the  DESD  Act. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See section 64 of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See pages GD9-4 and GD9-15 to GD9-20. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See pages GD3-65 and GD3-75. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See page GD9-3. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See pages GD9-21 to GD9-22, Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See page GD9-7 to GD9-14. Return to footnote 30 referrer