Judicial Review Upholds Employment Insurance Denial for Full-Time Student
📌 In brief
A full-time student challenged a decision denying her employment insurance benefits. The Federal Court of Appeal reviewed the case and upheld the original decision, finding that the presumption of non-availability for full-time students was reasonable, taking into account the student's personal restrictions and the job market conditions during the pandemic.
⚖️ Legal holding
A full-time student's availability for work must be assessed contextually, including personal restrictions and job market conditions.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that to receive employment insurance benefits, a person must prove they were capable of and available for work, and unable to find suitable employment on a working day. It also covers situations where a person is unable to work due to illness, injury, or quarantine but would otherwise be available, or is engaged in jury service.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Appeal Division's decision was upheld on judicial review. The presumption of non-availability for full-time students was found to be reasonable.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an application for judicial review challenging a decision denying employment insurance benefits to a full-time student. The court held that the presumption of non-availability for full-time students was reasonable, given the contextual analysis of the student's circumstances, including personal restrictions and job market conditions.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Date: 20260527 Docket: A-18-25 Citation: 2026 FCA 104 CORAM: [NAME] J.A. HECKMAN J.A. WALKER J.A. BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 27, 2026. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 27, 2026.
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: [NAME] J.A. Date: 20260527 Docket: A-18-25 Citation: 2026 FCA 104 CORAM: [NAME] J.A. HECKMAN J.A. WALKER J.A. BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 27, 2026). [NAME] J.A. [ 1 ] The applicant, [NAME], seeks judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal dated December 9, 2024 (2024 [NAME] 1517). The Appeal Division confirmed that, except for a two-week period, [NAME] was disentitled from receiving employment insurance benefits as she had not demonstrated her availability for work while studying full-time at university. [ 2 ] [NAME] claims that the Appeal Division erred by failing to conduct a contextual analysis that included the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for the job market and for those searching for work during that period, before applying the presumption of non-availability that applies to full-time students and, as such, mischaracterized her evidence of availability. She also disagrees with the Appeal Division’s determination of what constituted suitable employment. Finally, she submits that she was denied procedural fairness as the Appeal Division’s reasons do not meaningfully grapple with her evidence, documentary records and post-hearing submissions. [ 3 ] The decision of the Appeal Division is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65; [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FCA 169 at para. 48). The burden of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable lies with [NAME] ( Vavilov at para. 100). [ 4 ] After careful consideration of [NAME]’s arguments, we see no basis to intervene. [NAME] has failed to demonstrate that the decision of the Appeal Division is unreasonable. [ 5 ] [NAME] received employment insurance benefits while attending school on a full-time basis. Full-time students are presumed to be unavailable for work within the meaning of paragraph 18(1)( a ) of the Employment Insurance Act , S.C. 1996, c. 23 ( [NAME] at para. 67). Contrary to [NAME]’s submission, the Appeal Division did not treat the presumption as determinative. Rather, it noted that the presumption is rebuttable and conducted a contextual analysis by considering, after determining what constituted suitable employment for [NAME], the evidence regarding her circumstances, her desire to return to the labor market, her limited job search efforts and the personal restrictions she set for herself. The Appeal Division reasonably held that the presumption of unavailability had not been rebutted. In making its determination, the Appeal Division also relied on factual findings made by the General Division, and it is not this Court’s role to reweigh the evidence ( Vavilov at para. 125; [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FCA 203 at para. 13). [ 6 ] Finally, as noted at the hearing, [NAME]’s procedural fairness complaint relates to the Appeal Division’s reasons. The question of whether the reasons sufficiently grapple with [NAME]’s evidence and arguments goes to the reasonableness of the decision ( Vavilov at para. 128), and we see no basis to intervene on this ground. In particular, while fewer jobs may have been available during the pandemic, it was not unreasonable for the Appeal Division to find that [NAME] had unduly limited her job search to employment related to her career aspirations. [ 7 ] The style of cause will be amended to substitute the Attorney General of Canada for the Canada Employment Insurance Commission as the proper respondent. [ 8 ] The application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed. The respondent did not seek costs, and none will be awarded. " [NAME] " J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-18-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: OTTAWA, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: May 27, 2026
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: [NAME] J.A. HECKMAN J.A. WALKER J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: [NAME] J.A. APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant ON HER [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] of Canada For The Respondent
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The presumption of non-availability for full-time students is rebuttable and requires a contextual analysis.
- The Appeal Division considered the applicant's personal restrictions and limited job search efforts.
- The Appeal Division's reliance on factual findings from the General Division is appropriate and not for reweighing by the Court.
- The Appeal Division reasonably concluded that the applicant had unduly limited her job search to only career-related positions.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The argument that the Appeal Division should have considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the job market was not persuasive.
- The claim that the Appeal Division mischaracterized the applicant's evidence of availability was not supported.
- The contention that the Appeal Division's reasons did not meaningfully address the applicant's evidence and submissions was not found compelling.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the denial of employment insurance benefits to a full-time student.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether a full-time student was eligible for employment insurance benefits, particularly during the pandemic.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to uphold the original decision, reasoning that the presumption of non-availability for full-time students was reasonable given the contextual analysis of the student's circumstances.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Employment Insurance Act, s. 18(1)(a) was applied, along with the principles established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the contextual analysis of the student's availability for work, including personal restrictions and the impact of the pandemic on the job market.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case, upholding the denial of employment insurance benefits.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may face challenges in proving their availability for work if they are a full-time student, especially if they have personal restrictions or limitations.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered, but it considered the student's circumstances, job search efforts, and the impact of the pandemic on the job market.