Employment Insurance Benefits Denied Due to Insufficient Hours Worked
📌 In brief
The Social Security Tribunal denied a woman's request for Employment Insurance benefits because she did not work enough hours during her qualifying period. Despite her argument that Employment Insurance rules should be more lenient for older workers, the Tribunal ruled against her.
⚖️ Legal holding
To qualify for Employment Insurance benefits, a claimant must meet the required number of insurable hours.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's appeal for Employment Insurance benefits was denied due to insufficient hours worked.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Social Security Tribunal of Canada denied a claimant's request for Employment Insurance benefits due to insufficient hours worked during the qualifying period. The claimant argued that the rules should be relaxed for individuals aged 55 and over, but the Tribunal found no basis for such a relaxation.
📚 Full judgment Official document
[TRANSLATION] Citation: MB v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026 SST 3 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 23, 2025 (GE-25-3202 and GE-25-3204) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 5, 2026 File numbers: AD-25-828 and AD-25-829 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead. Overview [ 2 ] The Applicant (Claimant) stopped working on April 2, 2025. She applied for regular benefits on June 27, 2025. [ 3 ] Based on the two Records of Employment ( ROE s) that her employer issued, she had 421 hours of insurable employment in her qualifying period established between July 21, 2024, and June 21, 2025. [ 4 ] On July 30, 2025, the Respondent (Commission) told the Claimant that she wasn’t entitled to benefits. She had 421 hours of insurable employment in her qualifying period between July 21, 2024, and June 21, 2025, but she needed 630 hours to get benefits. [ 5 ] The Claimant argued that because of some health problems, she has difficulty finding a job. It is harder for people aged 55 and over to find a job, and Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) rules should be relaxed so that this age group can get benefits. [ 6 ] On September 24, 2025, the Commission gave another decision telling the Claimant that it could not reconsider the July 30, 2025, decision a second time. Instead, she should appeal to the Tribunal’s General Division to challenge the decision. [ 7 ] The General Division decided that the Claimant hadn’t shown that she had worked enough hours to qualify for [NAME] benefits. She needed 630 hours, but she had only 421 hours in the qualifying period. It dismissed her appeal. [ 8 ] The Claimant is asking the Appeal Division for permission to appeal the General Division decision. She reiterates that it is harder for people aged 55 and over to find a job, and that [NAME] rules should be relaxed so that this age group can get benefits. She is asking the Appeal Division to grant her benefits based on her contributions to the program. [ 9 ] 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. [ 10 ] I am refusing permission to appeal because the Claimant hasn’t raised a ground of appeal based on which the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. Issue [ 11 ] Does the Claimant’s appeal have a reasonable chance of success based on a reviewable error the General Division may have made? Analysis The test for getting permission to appeal [ 12 ] The law specifies the only grounds of appeal of a General Division decision. Footnote 1 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 didn’t have the power to 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. [ 13 ] 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 her case; she has to instead establish that her appeal has a reasonable chance of success. This means that she has to show that there is arguably a reviewable error based on which the appeal might succeed. [ 14 ] 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 [ 15 ] The Claimant reiterates that it is harder for people aged 55 and over to find a job, and that [NAME] rules should be relaxed so that this age group can get benefits. She is asking the Appeal Division to grant her benefits based on her contributions to the program. [ 16 ] Based on the two ROE s that her employer issued, the Claimant had 421 hours of insurable employment in her qualifying period established between July 21, 2024, and June 21, 2025. Footnote 2 [ 17 ] To qualify for benefits, the Claimant needed 630 hours. [ 18 ] Claimants need to meet the qualifying criteria to get [NAME] benefits. In this case, the Claimant doesn’t have enough hours to qualify. So, she doesn’t meet the qualifying criteria to get [NAME] benefits. Footnote 3 [ 19 ] It is important to remember that the [NAME] program, like any other insurance program that people contribute to, doesn’t automatically give benefits to someone because they contributed to the program and became unemployed. [ 20 ] While I sympathize with the Claimant’s situation, unfortunately, the Employment Insurance Act ( [NAME] Act) doesn’t allow any flexibility and gives the Tribunal no discretion to fix the issue with her benefits claim, even for compassionate reasons. Footnote 4 [ 21 ] I understand that the Claimant wants the qualifying criteria in the law to be relaxed for people aged 55 and over. But any change to the [NAME] Act has to come from Parliament. [ 22 ] 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. The Claimant hasn’t raised any issue that could justify setting aside the decision under review. Conclusion [ 23 ] Permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See GD3-15 and GD3-17. Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 Nothing in the file made it possible to rescind or amend the decision that the Commission gave on July 30, 2025, under section 111 of the Employment Insurance Act . Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 See Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2001 FCA 304: In that case, the Claimant was short by one hour to qualify for benefits. Return to footnote 4
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The applicant had 421 hours of insurable employment, which was less than the required 630 hours.
- The Employment Insurance Act does not provide flexibility for individuals who fall short of the qualifying hours requirement.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicant argued that it is harder for people aged 55 and over to find a job, and therefore, Employment Insurance rules should be relaxed.
- The applicant requested that the Appeal Division grant her benefits based on her contributions to the program despite not meeting the qualifying hours requirement.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Social Security Tribunal denied the claimant's request for Employment Insurance benefits due to insufficient hours worked.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant met the requirements for Employment Insurance benefits based on her hours worked.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided against the claimant because she did not meet the required number of insurable hours to qualify for Employment Insurance benefits.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Employment Insurance Act was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The claimant argued that Employment Insurance rules should be relaxed for individuals aged bcm 55 and over.
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 must ensure they meet the required number of insurable hours to qualify for Employment Insurance benefits.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The Records of Employment (ROEs) issued by the claimant's employer were crucial in determining the number of insurable hours worked.