Full-time Student Wins EI Benefits Appeal

[TRANSLATION] Citation: AJ  v  [NAME] Commission , 2026  SST  97 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated October 20, 2025 (GE-25-2708) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: January 22, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: February 13, 2026 File number: AD-25-683 On this [NAME] Decision Overview Issue Preliminary remarks Analysis Remedy Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. The Appellant (Claimant) is entitled to Employment Insurance ( EI ) regular benefits as of April 28, 2025. Overview [ 2 ] The Respondent (Commission) decided that the Claimant isn’t entitled to EI  regular benefits as of April 28, 2025, because he wasn’t available for work. This was because he was in school full time. [ 3 ] The Claimant disagreed and appealed to the Tribunal’s General Division. [ 4 ] The General Division found that the Claimant hadn’t rebutted the presumption of non-availability for full-time students. He showed that he wanted to go back to work, and he made enough efforts to find a suitable job. But the General Division found that he was setting personal conditions that limited his chances of going back to work, since he was available for work only outside his training hours. [ 5 ] The Appeal Division gave the Claimant permission to appeal the General Division decision. He argues that the General Division made an error of law by ignoring that he was available for work in the evenings, on weekends, and on Friday afternoons during his training. In the past, he had worked about 20 hours per week for his employer while taking full-time training in high school. He told the Commission that he wanted to work 30 to 35 hours per week while training to become a line worker. [ 6 ] I have to decide whether the General Division made an error of law in finding that the Claimant wasn’t available for work under the law because he was in school full time. [ 7 ] I am allowing the Claimant’s appeal. Issue [ 8 ] Did the General Division make an error of law in finding that the Claimant wasn’t available for work under the law because he was in school full time? Preliminary remarks [ 9 ] To decide this appeal, I have listened to the recording of the Tribunal’s General Division hearing. Analysis Did the General Division make an error of law in finding that the Claimant wasn’t available for work under the law because he was in school full time? [ 10 ] The Claimant argues that the General Division made an error of law by ignoring that he was available for work in the evenings, on weekends, and on Friday afternoons during his training. In the past, he had worked about 20 hours per week for his employer while taking full-time training in high school. He told the Commission that he wanted to work 30 to 35 hours per week while training to become a line worker. [ 11 ] I am of the view that the General Division made errors in how it interpreted the third [NAME] factor. Footnote 1 [ 12 ] The General Division correctly said that there is a rebuttable presumption that a student in school full time isn’t available for work. [ 13 ] But the applicable law doesn’t require a claimant to have a history of working full time while in school to rebut the presumption that, as a full-time student, they aren’t available for work under section 18(1)(a) of the Employment Insurance Act  ( EI  Act). Rather, the law allows a claimant to rebut the presumption by proving exceptional circumstances. Footnote 2 [ 14 ] I am of the view that the General Division made an error by not considering the Claimant’s part-time job and its nature. It also didn’t consider that he had shown his ability to keep a part-time job over the long term while studying full time. This is an exceptional circumstance that is enough to rebut the presumption of non-availability. [ 15 ] I am also of the view that the General Division made an error in how it interpreted [NAME] . This decision says that “these definitions define suitability with reference to the position held by a claimant before their job loss.” Footnote 3 So, it made an error in finding that the Claimant had set personal conditions that might unduly limit the chances of going back to work. This was because he was available for work only outside his training hours. Footnote 4 [ 16 ] Given the General Division’s errors, I am justified in intervening. Remedy [ 17 ] Since the parties had the opportunity to present their respective positions before the General Division, I am of the view that the record is complete. So, I will give the decision that the General Division should have given. Footnote 5 [ 18 ] To be considered available for work, a claimant has to show that they are capable of and available for work and unable to find a suitable job. Footnote 6 [ 19 ] Availability has to be determined by analyzing three factors: a) wanting to go back to work as soon as a suitable job is available b) making efforts to find a suitable job c) not setting personal conditions that might unduly limit the chances of going back to work Footnote 7 [ 20 ] In addition, availability is determined for each working day of a benefit period where the Claimant can prove that, on that day, he was capable of and available for work but unable to find a suitable job. Footnote 8 [ 21 ] After hearing his testimony, I have no doubt that the Claimant wanted to go back to work as soon as a suitable job was available. He had already shown that he wanted to work as much as possible while he was in school full time. Footnote 9 I am also of the view that he made enough efforts to find a suitable job. [ 22 ] The Commission accuses the Claimant of having applied for only four jobs between April 29 and August 18, 2025. These jobs were different in nature from his previous job. [ 23 ] Before the General Division, the Claimant testified that he had gone around the village, but that it was difficult to find a job. This was because it was a small village with only a few businesses. [ 24 ] The Claimant also noted that jobs, like those at [NAME], were hard to find because the older people in the village usually held them. [ 25 ] The evidence shows that, as early as May 23, 2025, the Claimant told the Commission that he had applied to [NAME], and [NAME]. Footnote 10 The Commission didn’t tell him at that time to apply for jobs based on his experience. The Claimant wasn’t asked again about the efforts he was making to find a job until the interview on August 19, 2025. Footnote 11 After that interview, he expanded his efforts to find a job and applied to 13 other places. [ 26 ] Given the circumstances and his credible testimony, I find that he has satisfactorily established that he made reasonable efforts to find a suitable job as of April 28, 2025. Footnote 12 [ 27 ] Finally, I am of the view that the Claimant didn’t set personal conditions that might unduly limit the chances of going back to work. [ 28 ] As the Federal Court of Appeal noted in [NAME] , a contextual analysis is required to ascertain whether the presumption is rebutted. [ 29 ] I find that the Claimant provided an exceptional circumstance that allows him to rebut the presumption that a person taking training full time isn’t available for work. In fact, he showed his ability to keep a part-time job over the long term while studying full time. [ 30 ] The Claimant said that he was available to work between 30 and 35 hours per week to take on a job. Footnote 13 He applied for a total of 17 jobs. He made efforts in the nearest village to increase his chances of finding a job. [ 31 ] I am of the view that the Claimant didn’t unduly limit his chances of going back to work, despite the demands of his training. [ 32 ] Based on my findings on the three factors, I find that the Claimant has shown that he was capable of and available for work but unable to find a suitable job under section 18(1)(a) of the EI  Act. [ 33 ] For these reasons, I am allowing the Claimant’s appeal. Conclusion [ 34 ] The appeal is allowed. The Claimant is entitled to EI  regular benefits as of April 28, 2025. Footnotes Footnote 1 [NAME]  v  [NAME] and Immigration Commission , A-56-96 and A-57-96. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See JD  v  [NAME] Commission , 2019  SST  438. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2023  FCA  169. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2023  FCA  169. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 59(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 18(1)(a) of the Employment Insurance Act . Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  [NAME] and Immigration Commission , A-56-96 and A-57-96. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2005  FCA  73. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See GD3-27. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD3-23. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD3-35. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See Attorney General of Canada  v  [NAME] , A-686-93 and A-687-93. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD3-35. Return to footnote 13 referrer