Employment Insurance Benefits Denied Due to Labour Disputes

[TRANSLATION] Citation: DS  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  310 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated October 17, 2025 (GE-25-1879 and GE-25-1880) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In person Hearing date: March 17, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: April 23, 2026 File number: AD-25-742 and AD-25-743 On this page Decision Overview Issue Preliminary remarks Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The disentitlements from receiving Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) benefits imposed on the Appellant (Claimant) are upheld. They were imposed because he lost a job or wasn’t able to resume one after a work stoppage resulting from a labour dispute. Overview [ 3 ] From September 1, 2022, to June 27, 2023, the Claimant worked as a teacher at X. He stopped working for that employer because of a shortage of work. [ 4 ] On June 28, 2023, he applied for [NAME]  benefits. A benefit period was established as of July 2, 2023. [ 5 ] The Claimant then worked as a substitute teacher at the high school level at [COMPANY]. [ 6 ] After their collective agreement expired at the end of March 2023, Quebec’s public sector teachers triggered work stoppages at different times in November and December 2023. [ 7 ] The work stoppages at Y took place on the following dates: for half a day on November 6, 2023; from November 21 to 23, 2023; and from December 8 to 14, 2023. The Respondent (Commission) told the Claimant that it could not pay him [NAME]  benefits at a rate of one day per week. This was because he had lost his part‑time job as a result of a labour dispute. [ 8 ] The work stoppage at the [COMPANY] [[COMPANY]] (W) took placeas of November 23, 2023. The Commission told the Claimant that it could not pay him [NAME]  benefits at a rate of three days per week for the period from November 23, 2023, to December 27, 2023. This was because he had lost his part‑time job as a result of a labour dispute. [ 9 ] On reconsideration, the Commission upheld the initial decisions. The Claimant appealed to the Tribunal’s General Division. [ 10 ] The General Division found that the disentitlements from receiving [NAME]  benefits imposed on the Claimant were justified. They were imposed because he lost his jobs or wasn’t able to resume them after work stoppages resulting from a labour dispute. [ 11 ] The Appeal Division gave the Claimant permission to appeal the General Division decision. He argues that the General Division made an error of fact and law. [ 12 ] For the following reasons, I am dismissing the Claimant’s appeal. Issue [ 13 ] Did the General Division make an error when it found that the disentitlements imposed on the Claimant under section 36 of the Employment Insurance Act  ( [NAME]  Act) were justified? Preliminary remarks [ 14 ] In deciding this appeal, it is well established that I have to consider only the evidence that was before the Tribunal’s General Division. Footnote 1 Analysis Did the General Division make an error when it found that the disentitlements imposed on the Claimant under section 36 of the [NAME]  Act were justified? The Claimant’s position [ 15 ] The Claimant argues that section 36 of the [NAME]  Act, dealing with losing a job because of a labour dispute, doesn’t apply to his case. [ 16 ] The Claimant argues that he stopped working on June 27, 2023, and a claim for [NAME]  benefits was established as of July 2, 2023. He argues that he was entitled to benefits from early July 2023. He didn’t lose his job because of the walkouts that took place at the [COMPANY] where he worked in November and December 2023. [ 17 ] The Claimant also argues that he didn’t participate in the strike because he was against it, and that he wasn’t involved in the labour dispute. [ 18 ] The Claimant finally argues that he worked after the strike was triggered, and that he reported his earnings. This was because he wanted to work rather than go on strike. General Division decision [ 19 ] The General Division found that there was a labour dispute at the Claimant’s workplaces, specifically Y and W. The labour dispute resulted in a work stoppage at each of his workplaces. [ 20 ] The General Division found that teachers at Y, a member of the [NAME], had triggered sporadic strikes on the following dates: for half a day on November 6, 2023; from November 21 to 23, 2023; and from December 8 to 14, 2023. Teachers at W, a member of the unions that the Fédération autonome de l’enseignement  (FAE) represented, had triggered a strike from November 22, 2023, to December 27, 2023. It found that there was a causal link between the labour dispute and the work stoppages. Those stoppages caused the Claimant to lose his job at both [COMPANY]. [ 21 ] The General Division found that the Claimant had participated in the labour dispute, even though he didn’t take an active part in the picket lines or union meetings. This was because he paid union dues, and he would benefit from improved wages and working conditions once the dispute was settled. [ 22 ] The General Division found that the Claimant’s employment status as an occasional substitute didn’t exempt him from the application of section 36 of the [NAME]  Act. It also found that, even though he was entitled to benefits before the work stoppages started at each of those two [COMPANY], this didn’t change the fact that he had lost both jobs as a result of the work stoppages. [ 23 ] The General Division found that the Claimant hadn’t become regularly engaged in employment elsewhere before the work stoppage at Y ended or before the one at W ended. [ 24 ] The General Division found that the disentitlements from receiving [NAME]  benefits imposed on the Claimant were justified. They were imposed because he lost his jobs or wasn’t able to resume them after work stoppages resulting from a labour dispute. Did the Claimant lose a job or wasn’t able to resume one because of a work stoppage resulting from a labour dispute? [ 25 ] Yes, the Claimant lost his job or wasn’t able to resume it at [NAME]. This was because of a work stoppage resulting from a labour dispute. [ 26 ] A claimant who loses or isn’t able to resume their job because of a work stoppage resulting from a labour dispute where they worked isn’t entitled to benefits. [ 27 ] The Claimant argues that he didn’t lose a job under the law, since he worked only when needed for the two [COMPANY] in dispute. He had to contact them every morning to offer his instructional services. [ 28 ] The fact that a claimant isn’t a permanent employee but occasionally works only when needed, on a trial basis or part‑time, isn’t relevant. The issue is whether the claimant was prevented from working because of a work stoppage resulting from a labour dispute. Footnote 2 [ 29 ] The evidence supports the General Division’s finding that the Claimant lost his job or wasn’t able to resume it at W because of the labour dispute. [ 30 ] The Claimant worked for 12 consecutive weeks for this employer in the past, for the period from September 6 to November 20, 2023. This amounts to a total of 295 hours, averaging 25 hours per week. He didn’t work for this employer during the work stoppage. There had clearly been no severance between him and that employer when the strike started. [ 31 ] The evidence also supports the General Division’s finding that the Claimant lost his job or wasn’t able to resume it at Y because of the labour dispute. [ 32 ] The Claimant worked at Y both before and after the intermittent strike days. He worked for this employer from September 7 to October 18, 2023. He then worked from November 29 to December 7, just before the second strike period. He also worked on December 19, 2023, a few days after the third strike period. He didn’t work for this employer during the work stoppages. There had clearly been no severance between him and that employer when the strike started. [ 33 ] Also, the Claimant was hired by Y with a full workload from the end of January 2024 to June 27, 2024. The Claimant’s main argument [ 34 ] The Claimant argues that he stopped working at X on June 27, 2023. A claim for [NAME]  benefits was established for him as of July 2, 2023. He says that he didn’t lose the job that allowed him to be entitled to benefits because of the strike at the [COMPANY]. He then reported his earnings while working, as required under the [NAME]  Act. [ 35 ] Basically, the Claimant would like section 36 to apply only to jobs that [translation] “generate benefits.” Only losing a job that [translation] “generates benefits,” if it resulted from a strike, would lead to a disentitlement from receiving benefits. [ 36 ] While I find the Claimant’s argument to be entirely valid, that isn’t what the law says. I am also required to follow the teachings of the Federal Court of Appeal. [ 37 ] [ADDRESS] clearly said in [NAME] that a claimant who loses their job because of a shortage of work, then takes another job that isn’t full-time, and reports their earnings to the Commission while receiving benefits, is disentitled from receiving benefits under the [NAME]  Act. This is if they lose that other job because of a work stoppage resulting from a labour dispute. Footnote 3 [ 38 ] [ADDRESS] noted that this result wasn’t sustainable in light of any rational assessment of the intent of the law, but that it was the law. [ 39 ] After the Court’s comments, [NAME] decided to allow benefits to be reduced in a situation like this. Footnote 4 Did the Claimant prove that he wasn’t participating in the labour dispute that caused the work stoppage, that he wasn’t funding it, and that he had no direct interest in it? [ 40 ] No, the Claimant didn’t prove that he wasn’t participating in the labour dispute that caused the work stoppage, that he wasn’t funding it, and that he had no direct interest in it. [ 41 ] The General Division found that the Claimant was a member of the union in each of the [COMPANY] that took part in the strike. It found that he paid union dues, and that he would benefit from the eventual settlement of the labour dispute. He had a direct interest in the dispute, even though he didn’t participate in it and didn’t want the strike. [ 42 ] As the General Division noted, if a union has been actively involved in the labour dispute, its members can’t later claim that they are entitled to [NAME]  benefits because they weren’t personally participating in the dispute. This applies regardless of the degree of the union’s involvement or its interest in the dispute, and all of the other surrounding circumstances. Footnote 5 Did the Claimant become regularly engaged in insurable employment elsewhere before the dispute ended? [ 43 ] No, the Claimant didn’t become regularly engaged in insurable employment elsewhere before the labour dispute ended. [ 44 ] The General Division found that the word “regularly” is to be used with the connotation of “continuity” rather than “casual” or “intermittent.” Footnote 6 [ 45 ] The General Division found that, even though the Claimant had worked at the [COMPANY] [[COMPANY]] during the work stoppages at Y or W, he hadn’t become regularly engaged in insurable employment elsewhere that would have ended his disentitlements. [ 46 ] The General Division found that it was only at the end of January 2024, that is, after the work stoppages at Y and W ended, that the Claimant became regularly engaged in employment after starting a contract representing 100% of a teaching assignment at Y. [ 47 ] As the General Division found, a claimant who has a job where they work when needed, intermittently or sporadically, in an unpredictable manner, isn’t considered to be working regularly under section 36(1)(b) of the [NAME]  Act. Footnote 7 [ 48 ] The Claimant was assigned to work sporadically before the end of the dispute. But these assignments don’t meet the legal threshold for regular employment that would lift the disentitlement related to a work stoppage, under section 36 of the [NAME]  Act. Conclusion [ 49 ] The appeal is dismissed. The disentitlements from receiving [NAME]  benefits imposed on the Claimant are upheld. They were imposed because he lost his job or wasn’t able to resume one after a work stoppage resulting from a labour dispute. Footnote 8 Footnotes Footnote 1 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  157. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , A-1415-84; CUB 65854; and CUB 56673. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , A-90-81. See also [NAME]  v  Attorney General of Canada , A-398-85. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 52 of the Employment Insurance Regulations . Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2004  FCA  241. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See the Court’s decisions in [NAME] , A-1460-92; and [NAME] , A-765-85. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Attorney General of Canada , 1983 CanLII 17 ( SCC ), [1983] 1 SCR 2. The Supreme Court said that a claimant would not be considered to be regularly employed if they were on call and had to show up on the days when they were needed. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 For W, the partial disentitlements have to be imposed as follows: two days of disentitlement on November 23 and 24, 2023; three days of disentitlement in the week of November 27 to December 1, 2023; and three days per week for each of the weeks in the period from December 4 to December 28, 2023. For Y, the partial disentitlements have to be imposed as follows: on November 6; one day for the strike period from November 21 to 23; on December 8; and one day for the period from December 11 to December 14, 2023. Return to footnote 8 referrer