Partial Allowance of Appeal on EI Job Search Exception

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

Citation: AG  v  Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  [NAME]  336 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] 19, 2026 (GE-26-273) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: June 8, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative Respondent Decision date: June 17, 2026 File number: AD-26-162 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The Commission’s appeal is allowed in part. The [NAME] made a legal error in its reasons about [RESPONDENT].’s November/December 2021 trip outside Canada. [ 2 ] I fixed that error by making the decision the [NAME] should have made. The Claimant can get regular benefits for a 14-day period during her November/December 2021 trip because she was conducting a job search. [ 3 ] The rest of the [NAME] decision stands unchanged. Overview [ 4 ] [RESPONDENT]. is the Claimant in this case. She made a claim for [NAME] ) regular benefits. The Commission paid her benefits, including during four trips when she didn’t tell the Commission she was outside Canada. [ 5 ] People can’t collect [NAME] benefits when they are outside Canada. Footnote 1 I’ll call this the outside Canada rule. Exceptionally, a person can get benefits for 7 days to attend a job interview or for 14 days to job search—if they are available for work. Footnote 2 I’ll call these the job interview and job search exceptions. [ 6 ] The [NAME] found the [APPELLANT] attended four job interviews and job searched during her November/December 2021 trip. It decided she could add up her job interview and job search exemptions—for a total of 42 days. So, it decided she was entitled to regular benefits for the entire trip. [ 7 ] The [NAME] made a legal error when it ignored the law says a person can’t add up job search or job interview exceptions during a single trip. I fixed the error by making the decision the [NAME] should have made. The Claimant was entitled to a 14-day job search exemption during her November/December 2021 trip. [ 8 ] The Commission hasn’t shown the [NAME] made an important factual error when it found the [APPELLANT] attended job interviews during her March and April 2022 trips, or did a job search during her April 2022 trip. Issues [ 9 ] I will decide four issues. Did the [NAME] make a legal error by letting the Claimant add up the job search and job interview exceptions during her November/December 2021 trip? Did the [NAME] make an important factual error about the [APPELLANT] third and fourth trips when it accepted her testimony without documents to support it? If I find an error, should I remedy (fix) the error by making the decision the [NAME] should have made? Is the Claimant eligible for [NAME]  regular benefits during her November/December trip under an exception? And if she is, for how many days? [ 10 ] The Commission hasn’t challenged the [NAME] decision about the Claimant’s availability for work during any of the four trips, how the Commission used its reconsideration power, or the warning letter. And it hasn’t challenged the [NAME]’s decision about the January/February 2022 trip. So, I don’t have to consider whether the [NAME] made an error in these parts of its decision. Analysis [ 11 ] When I find the [NAME] made an error, the law gives me the power to fix the [NAME] decision. Footnote 3 The law lets me consider four types of errors—the [NAME] used an unfair process, or made a jurisdictional error, a legal error, or an important factual error. Footnote 4 [ 12 ] The parties didn’t dispute the [APPELLANT] took four trips outside Canada during her claim. November/December 2021 (Cairo and Dubai) Footnote 5 January/February 2022 (Portland) Footnote 6 March 2022 (Istanbul) Footnote 7 April 2022 (Cairo) Footnote 8 [ 13 ] The Commission argues the [NAME] made a legal error in its analysis of the November/December 2021 trip. And it argues the [NAME] made important factual errors when it considered the March and April 2022 trips. The [NAME] ignored the laws says that the job search and job interview exceptions aren’t cumulative during a single trip [ 14 ] The Commission argues the [NAME] made a legal error. It says the [NAME] misinterpreted section 55(1.1) of the [NAME] when it added up the job interview and job search exceptions for the Claimant’s November/December 2021 trip. [ 15 ] The [NAME] makes a legal error when it misinterprets a section of the Employment Insurance Regulations ( [NAME]) or ignores a section it should have considered. [ 16 ] The [NAME] found the [APPELLANT] went to four interviews and looked for work during her November/December 2021 trip. It added up the exceptions for her interviews (4 times 7 days) and her job search (14 days). And found the law gave her 42 days of exemptions. So, it decided the Claimant was entitled to benefits during her entire November/December 2021 trip. [ 17 ] I agree the [NAME] made a legal error when it understood the job search and job interview exceptions were cumulative. But it seems to me the [NAME] didn’t misinterpret section 55(1.1) of the [NAME] so much as it ignored that section. [ 18 ] I find the [NAME] made a legal error by not considering and following section 55(1.1) of the [NAME]. That section says only the exceptions in 55(1)(b) and (d) may be cumulated during a single trip outside Canada. Footnote 9 Those clear and unequivocal words mean the exceptions under sections 55(1)(e) (job interview) and 55(1)(f) (job search) can’t be added up for a single trip. To be fair to the Commission’s argument, I can also accept the [NAME] misinterpreted sections 55(1)(e) and (f) given what section 55(1.1) says. [ 19 ] I can’t accept the Claimant’s argument she should be allowed to accumulate the job search and job interview exceptions. She argues this makes sense because she is an Egyptian citizen and allowed to work in Egypt. She says she has significant family ties to that country, looked for work in the MENA region, eventually found work in that region, and continues to work there. Footnote 10 Her argument goes against what the law says. The Commission and this Tribunal can’t change the law. We must follow it. The [NAME] didn’t make a factual error about the purposes of the Claimant’s March and April 2022 trips [ 20 ] The Commission argues the [NAME] made an important factual error about the [APPELLANT] 2022 trips by relying solely on her testimony about the purpose of these trips. Footnote 11 It argues there is insufficient evidence to support her testimony—in other words, corroborating evidence. Job interviews [ 21 ] The Commission argues the [APPELLANT] “provided tangible, documentary evidence for other interviews that she travelled to attend, but nothing to support” that she attended job interviews during her March and April 2022 trips. [ 22 ] I can’t accept the Commission’s argument. The Commission’s argument boils down to a disagreement about how the [NAME] weighed the evidence. And a disagreement with the [NAME]’s finding the Claimant met her burden of proof to claim the job interview exemption under section 55(1)(e) of the [NAME]. But how the [NAME] weighed or assessed the evidence isn’t an error the law lets me consider. [ 23 ] The [NAME] had to decide whether the Claimant’s evidence about her March and April 2022 interviews was credible and reliable, and what weight to give it. Overall, it’s reasons show me that’s what it did. Footnote 12 I listened to the hearing. The Claimant testified in detail about the interviews she attended during her March and April 2022 trips. She gave dates, company names, names of people she met with, and the addresses where the interviews took place. Footnote 13 [ 24 ] The [NAME] might have done a better job distinguishing between the documents in evidence (copies of emails) and the [APPELLANT] testimony—broken down by trip. But I can’t interfere with a [NAME] finding of fact unless the Commission shows the [NAME] based its decision on a finding of fact it made by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. The Commission hasn’t done that in relation to the March and April 2022 job interviews. And the [APPELLANT] testimony supports the [NAME]’s findings. Job searches [ 25 ] The Commission argues the [NAME] made a factual error by finding the [APPELLANT] searched for work during her April 2022 trip. It says there is no evidence in the job search records to show she was looking for work outside the Toronto area during that time. Footnote 14 [ 26 ] I can find an important factual error when the [NAME] makes a factual finding with no evidence to support it or that is squarely contradicted by the evidence. Footnote 15 Then based its decision on that factual finding. The courts have said the Appeal Division can assume the [NAME] considered all the evidence—it doesn’t have to refer to every piece of evidence in its decision. [ 27 ] There is some evidence to support the [NAME]’s finding the [APPELLANT] job searched during her April 2022 trip. In her reconsideration request, the [APPELLANT] writes she was out of the country for bona fide job interviews abroad, and to conduct bona fide search for jobs abroad. Footnote 16 In a phone call, she told the Commission she used [NAME] to apply for hundreds of jobs during the four periods under review. Footnote 17 In her Notice of Appeal, she writes that while outside Canada, she continued to actively apply for jobs. Footnote 18 At the hearing, when the [NAME] asked her if she searched for work while on her trips, she responded “yes.” Footnote 19 [ 28 ] The [NAME] found the [APPELLANT] was entitled to a 14-day job search exemption for her April 2022 trip. [ 29 ] The Commission is arguing there needs to be more detailed and specific evidence, including documents, to support that conclusion. Once again, the Commission’s argument is about the [NAME]’s assessment and weighing of the evidence. I can’t interfere with that assessment or reweigh the evidence. So, the Commission’s argument doesn’t show an error. Fixing the [NAME] error by making the decision it should have made [ 30 ] The [APPELLANT] asked me to fix any error I found by sending her appeal back to the [NAME] to reconsider. I agree with the Commission’s position that I should make the decision the [NAME] should have made. [ 31 ] I should decide appeals as simply and quickly as fairness allows. Footnote 20 Sending the appeal to the [NAME] would not be simple or quick when compared with my power to make the decision now. And I find both parties had a full and fair opportunity to present their evidence and arguments at the [NAME]. That’s why I will make the decision. [ 32 ] The [NAME] made one error, by adding the days allowed under the job search and job interview exceptions during the Claimant’s November/December 2021 trip. I have to decide whether the Claimant has shown she meets an exception to the outside Canada rule during her November/December 2021 trip. [ 33 ] Neither party suggested the [NAME] made an error when it found the [APPELLANT] attended four interviews and did a job search during her November/December 2021 trip. So, I will adopt that factual finding. And the Commission agrees with the [NAME]’s conclusion she was available for work during that trip. Footnote 21 [ 34 ] So, I find the Claimant is eligible for [NAME] regular benefits for 14 days during her November/December 2021 trip, under the job search exception in section 55(1)(f) of the [NAME]. The Commission concedes this. Footnote 22 [ 35 ] The rest of the [NAME] decision stands unchanged. The Claimant will have a smaller overpayment and debt as a result of the Tribunal’s decisions [ 36 ] The Commission decided the Claimant wasn’t entitled to any [NAME] regular benefits during her four trips outside Canada. This left her with a significant overpayment and debt. Footnote 23 [ 37 ] She challenged the Commission’s decision and has succeeded to the extent the law allows her to succeed. [ 38 ] Taken together, the [NAME] decision and my decision will reduce the Claimant’s overpayment and debt when compared with the Commission’s decision and notice of debt. I strongly encourage the Commission to send the Claimant a letter explaining its calculation of her overpayment, including the effect of both Tribunal decisions. Conclusion [ 39 ] I found the [NAME] made one legal error. It ignored the law doesn’t allow a person to add up the job search and job interview exceptions for a single trip outside Canada. [ 40 ] I fixed that error by deciding whether she could get regular benefits during November/December 2021 trip. The Claimant is eligible for [NAME] regular benefits for 14 days during her November/December 2021 trip because she was conducting a bona fide job search and was available for work. [ 41 ] The rest of the [NAME] decision remains unchanged. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 37(b) of the Employment Insurance Act ( [NAME]). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 Sections 55(1)(e) and (f) of the Employment Insurance Regulations ( [NAME]) set out these exemptions. Section 55(1) of the [NAME] says the exceptions apply subject to section 18 of the [NAME]. Section 18(1)(a) says a person isn’t entitled to benefits for any day they fail to prove they are capable and available for work but unable to obtain suitable employment. See Canada ([NAME] [NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2013  FCA  151. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See section 59(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD  Act). Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 58(1) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 November 15, 2021 to December 24, 2021. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 January 29 to February 4, 2022. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 March 7 to 11, 2022. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 April 5 to 15, 2022 Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 These exceptions allow a person to visit a very sick [NAME] or attend the funeral of a [NAME]. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 MENA refers to the Middle East and North Africa. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See AD3-7 to AD3-9. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See the [NAME] decision at paragraphs 32, 39, 40, 49, 51. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 Listen to the [NAME] hearing recording at 16:25 and 17:29. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See the Commission’s argument at AD3-8. See her job interview and search records in GD6. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2018  FCA  118 at paragraphs 5 and 6. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD3-79. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD3-85. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD2-6. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 Listen to the [NAME] hearing recording at 17:55. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See section 8(1) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure . Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See AD3-9. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See AD3-7. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD3-69 to GD3-75. Return to footnote 23 referrer