Federal Court Rejects Claimant's Application for EI Benefits

Date: 20260710 Docket: T-3075-25 Citation: 2026 FC 932 Toronto, Ontario, July 10, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The General Division of the Social Security Tribunal [SST] denied the Applicant, [NAME], Employment Insurance [EI] benefits because it was determined that he left his employment without just cause to enroll in full-time studies and was not available to work. The Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal [SST] denied leave to appeal the General Division’s decision. The Applicant now seeks judicial review of the Appeal Division’s decision. [ 2 ] For the reasons set out below, the application is dismissed as the Applicant has not established that the Appeal Division’s decision was unreasonable, nor has he established that the Appeal Division improperly excluded his additional evidence.

I. Background A. Legislative framework [ 3 ] Pursuant to section 30 of the Employment Insurance Act , SC 1996, c 23 [EIA] a claimant will be disqualified from receiving EI benefits if the claimant lost their employment due to misconduct or because they voluntarily left their employment without just cause. A claimant voluntarily leaves employment when they sever the employment relationship. In such circumstances, the claimant will not be entitled to benefits unless they had “just cause” for their voluntary departure. Subsection 29(c) of the EIA provides that “just cause” exists when a claimant has “no reasonable alternative” for leaving their employment “having regard to all the circumstances” . Subsection 29(c) provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may constitute just cause. [ 4 ] Paragraph 18(1)(a) of the EIA provides that “a claimant is not entitled to be paid benefits for a working day in a benefit period for which the claimant fails to prove that on that day the claimant was capable of and available for work and unable to obtain suitable employment” . To prove that a claimant is available for work, the claimant may be required to prove that they are making reasonable and customary efforts to obtain suitable employment: EIA, s 50(8). In [NAME] v Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission) , 1997 CanLII 4856 (FCA) [ [NAME] ], the Federal Court of Appeal [FCA] established that an claimant’s availability is assessed using three factors: (1) a desire to return to the labour market as soon as a suitable job is available; (2) that desire is expressed through efforts to find a suitable job; and (3) there are no personal conditions that might unduly limit a claimant’s chances of returning to the labour market. B. Background facts [ 5 ] The Applicant worked as a security guard at the YMCA’s [NAME] location in Ottawa before leaving his employment on December 31, 2024 to begin a full-time academic program at [COMPANY] in Medical Radiation Technology [MRT] on January 6, 2025. The Applicant applied for regular EI benefits on January 11, 2025, stating that he left his employment to enroll full-time in the [NAME]. [ 6 ] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission [Commission] denied the Applicant’s application for EI benefits on February 4, 2025, finding the Applicant voluntarily left his job without just cause, choosing to prioritize his education. The Commission found the Applicant was not entitled to regular EI benefits because he was unavailable for work while attending school full-time. A request to reconsider the Commission’s Decision was denied on May 7, 2025 [Reconsideration Decision]. [ 7 ] The Applicant appealed the Reconsideration Decision to the General Division of the SST. The General Division dismissed the Applicant’s appeal on July 7, 2025 [GD Decision]. The General Division found the Applicant had not shown just cause for leaving his job because he had reasonable alternatives to leaving, which disqualified him from receiving EI benefits. After conducting a contextual analysis, the General Division further concluded that the Applicant had not shown he was available for work while in school, thus he did not rebut the presumption of non-availability. This meant he was not eligible to receive EI benefits. [ 8 ] The Applicant sought leave to appeal the GD Decision to the Appeal Division of the SST. [ 9 ] The Appeal Division may only grant leave to appeal a decision of the General Division where the appeal has a reasonable chance of success based on one of the three grounds specified in subsection 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act , SC 2005, c 34 [DESDA], namely that the decision was based on: (a) a breach of natural justice or jurisdictional error; (b) a legal error; or (c) an erroneous factual finding, made perversely and capriciously or without regard for the material before it. [ 10 ] The Applicant alleged that the General Division made errors of law and important errors of fact. On July 23, 2025, the Appeal Division denied the Applicant’s application for leave [Leave Decision], finding the appeal had no reasonable chance of success as the GD Decision was consistent with the jurisprudence on voluntary leave and availability for work, and the General Division’s key findings on these issues were consistent with the evidence in the record. [ 11 ] As a preliminary matter, the Appeal Division also denied the Applicant’s request to introduce a screenshot from the [COMPANY] student portal outlining information about the [NAME] and its length on the basis that it was impermissible new evidence.

II. Issues [ 12 ] There are two issues raised on this application: Did the Appeal Division err by refusing to admit the screenshot? Was the Appeal Division’s analysis of “just cause” and availability for work reasonable? [ 13 ] The parties assert, and I agree, that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness. As previously held by the FCA, leave decisions from the Appeal Division of the SST attract reasonableness review: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FCA 102 at para 4; Kuk v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FCA 74 at para 5; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FCA 121 at para 3; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2021 FCA 222 at para 7. [ 14 ] A reasonable decision is one that is based on “an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” : Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ] at para 85. A decision will be reasonable if, when read as a whole and considering the administrative setting, it bears the hallmarks of justification, transparency, and intelligibility: [NAME] at para 99.

III. Analysis A. Did the Appeal Division err by refusing to admit the screenshot? [ 15 ] The Applicant argues that the Appeal Division wrongly characterized the screenshot as new evidence without assessing its purpose or relationship to evidence already on the record. The Applicant asserts the screenshot merely corroborated his oral and written representations and that refusing to consider it effectively undermined the fairness of the appeal process. [ 16 ] The Applicant contends that he did not know about the compressed, two-year schedule for the [NAME] when he applied for the program because it is generally listed as a three-year program, as seen in the screenshot. He asserts that he only became aware of the compressed, two-year schedule after he was accepted into the program and began onboarding. He asserts that the realization of the compressed timetable influenced his decision to leave his job and that these circumstances were not adequately weighed in the GD Decision. [ 17 ] As the screenshot was not before the General Division, I see no error in the Appeal Division’s characterization of this document as proposed “new evidence” . As explained in the Leave Decision, new evidence is evidence that the General Division did not have before it when it made its decision. As the role of the Appeal Division is not to rehear the case, but rather to review the General Division’s decision based on the evidence that was before it, the Appeal Division does not generally accept new evidence: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2019 FCA 256 at para 13; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2017 FC 354 at para 23. [ 18 ] While there are some exceptions that may justify the admission of new evidence ( i.e. , where the information provides general background, highlights findings made without supporting evidence, or shows that the General Division acted unfairly), I see no error in the Appeal Division’s analysis that the screenshot does not fall into any of these exceptions. [ 19 ] As admitted by the Applicant, the screenshot serves to corroborate evidence already in the record. Contrary to the suggestion of the Applicant, its inclusion is thus not necessary to complete the record. [ 20 ] While I can understand that discovering the compressed program structure may have influenced the Applicant’s decision to leave his job, this does not reveal a reviewable error in the Appeal Division’s determination on admissibility. B. Was the Appeal Division’s analysis of “just cause” and availability for work reasonable? [ 21 ] As noted by the Appeal Division, the General Division had to determine two issues when making its decision: (1) whether the Applicant had voluntarily left his job without just cause, resulting in a disqualification to benefits; and (2) whether the Applicant had proven he was capable of working and available for work but was unable to find a suitable job, resulting in disentitlement to benefits. [ 22 ] A person has just cause for voluntarily leaving their job if, having regard to all the circumstances, they had no reasonable alternative to quitting. A person who wants to receive regular EI benefits must show they are capable of working and available for work but are not able to find a suitable job. They must also demonstrate that their efforts to find a job were reasonable and customary. (1) The Appeal Division’s analysis of “just cause” [ 23 ] The Applicant argues that the Appeal Division failed to undertake the required contextual analysis when assessing whether he had “just cause” to leave his employment. He asserts that the Appeal Division did not consider whether continuing to work was reasonably feasible in view of his full-time, compressed academic program, and ignored the fact that he had considered alternatives but that none were realistically available due to the program structure. [ 24 ] As reiterated by the FCA, the law is well settled: except for programs authorized by the Commission, returning to school full-time does not constitute just cause under subsection 29(c) of the EIA: Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2006 FCA 44 [ [NAME] ] at para 7. The primary purpose of EI benefits is to provide compensation for any insured who voluntarily finds themselves unemployed, it is not meant to assist those who make the personal choice to continue their training: [NAME] at para 9, citing Canada (Attorney General) v Martel , [1994] FCJ No 1458, 175 NR 275 at para 13. [ 25 ] As noted in the Leave Decision, there was no dispute the Applicant voluntarily left his job on December 31, 2024. The General Division identified the correct legal principles, and appreciated that to have just cause to voluntarily leave employment the Applicant had to have no reasonable alternative for quitting his job, which involved consideration of all the circumstances, including those set out in subsection 29(c) of the EIA: Canada (Attorney General) v White , 2011 FCA 190 at para 3. [ 26 ] The Appeal Division reasonably found that the General Division assessed the reasons the Applicant stated for leaving his job ( i.e ., the demands of his full-time school program, the lack of flexibility in his work schedule with his former employer, the stress caused by his job, and its affects on his health) but concluded that despite the mention of certain health issues, his job was not a danger to his health, and that he left his employment by choice to attend school full-time. [ 27 ] The General Division identified alternatives available to the Applicant ( i.e ., asking about medical leave or sickness benefits, postponing school, choosing to continue work instead of attending school, or looking for other employment) and found them to be reasonable. The Appeal Division reviewed these findings and did not find them erroneous. The Applicant has not demonstrated that these alternatives were impractical. [ 28 ] The Applicant’s argument that the Appeal Division did not consider whether continuing to work was feasible simply is disagreement with the finding that the Applicant had reasonable alternatives and amounts to a request for the Appeal Division to reconsider the evidence. [ 29 ] The Appeal Division considered the applicable law and reasonably found that the General Division had not erred in concluding that the Applicant voluntarily left his employment without just cause. The Applicant has not identified a reviewable error with this part of the analysis. (2) Availability for work [ 30 ] The Applicant asserts that the Appeal Division applied the presumption of non-availability too rigidly. He contends that the Appeal Division failed to consider that the structure of the [NAME] limited his options, that he never stopped expressing a willingness to work if a suitable opportunity arose, and that the rigid structure of his former employment restricted his options. [ 31 ] As set out in the Leave Decision, full-time students are presumed to be unavailable to work, unless the presumption is rebutted and a contextual analysis of the specific circumstances demonstrates that the full-time student remains available to work while in school: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FCA 169 [ [NAME] ] at paras 57, 59. For example, the presumption could be rebutted where the claimant indicated a willingness to give up their studies to accept employment or where a claimant has a history of being regularly employed while attending school and was searching for employment at hours similar to those previously worked: [NAME] at para 69. [ 32 ] In this case, both the Appeal Division and the General Division considered the Applicant’s specific circumstances and reasonably found that the Applicant could not work while attending school. In doing so, both the Appeal Division and the General Division gave significant weight to the Applicant’s admission that it was “absolutely impossible” to work while attending school and that he had “no availability” for work while attending school full-time. [ 33 ] While the Applicant stated that he had a general willingness to work if a suitable opportunity arose, such desire was reasonably found to be insufficient. As stated in [NAME] , and noted in the Leave Decision, stating a desire to return to work is insufficient without making reasonable or customary efforts to find work. The record did not show the Applicant had made such efforts. Nor did it show that the Applicant had a previous history of maintaining regular employment hours outside of school while attending full-time classes. [ 34 ] The Applicant has not shown a reviewable error with the Appeal Division’s analysis. Nor has he established that the Appeal Division’s leave determination was unreasonable. [ 35 ] For these reasons, the application must be dismissed. [ 36 ] As costs were not requested, none shall be awarded.

JUDGMENT in T-3075-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: The application is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. “[NAME]” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-3075-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: MAY 5, 2026

REASONS and judgment: [NAME] J. DATED: JULY 10, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant (ON HIS OWN BEHALF) [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Gatineau, Quebec For The Respondent