CB v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

CB v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Appellant’s credible testimony, corroborated by her pattern of in‑person job searching and evidence of obtaining two jobs, established capability and availability for the disentitlement period; the Commission did not properly invoke or document a s.50(8) disentitlement (no specific request for proof), and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2024 SST 1047
Parties
Appellant: C. B.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / General Division Decision (remitted From Appeal Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Availability for Work, Capability to Work, Disentitlement Under S.50(8), Reasonable and Customary Job Search Efforts, Credibility of Testimony, Suitable Employment, Medical Evidence Vs Conduct
Source Language
english
Employment Insurance Social Security Administrative Law Availability for Work Capability to Work Disentitlement Under S.50(8) Reasonable and Customary Job Search Efforts Credibility of Testimony +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. B.

Appellant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / General Division Decision (remitted From Appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission validly disentitled the Appellant under s.50(8) of the Employment Insurance Act
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant was capable of work during the period of disentitlement
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant was available for work and made reasonable and customary efforts to find suitable employment

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant’s credible testimony, corroborated by her pattern of in‑person job searching and evidence of obtaining two jobs, established capability and availability for the disentitlement period; the Commission did not properly invoke or document a s.50(8) disentitlement (no specific request for proof), and the Appellant’s health restriction (avoiding information‑intensive work) was a lawful limitation on suitability, therefore the Appellant was not disentitled.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed; Appellant found capable of and available for work for the period of the disentitlement (from May 17, 2020 onward) and therefore not disentitled from benefits for that reason