CL v Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Permission to appeal was granted and the appeal allowed because the General Division failed to take into account evidence that reasonably explained a six‑day delay, the Tribunal found the claimant received the reconsideration decision by mail about July 2, 2024, and the Commission conceded that the claimant’s...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2024 SST 1329
- Parties
- Appellant/claimant: C. L.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
- Court
- Social Security Tribunal of Canada
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 1 November 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Insurance Appeal / Appeal Division Decision on Permission to Appeal Following General Division Refusal to Extend Time
- Outcome
- Permission to appeal granted; appeal allowed; claimant entitled to Employment Insurance benefits.
- Legal Topics
- Qualifying Period Extension, Targeted Training, Late Appeal, Reconsideration Decision, Procedural Fairness
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
C. L.
Appellant/claimant
Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / Appeal Division Decision on Permission to Appeal Following General Division Refusal to Extend Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted
- 2 Whether the General Division erred in finding no reasonable explanation for the late appeal
- 3 Whether the claimant qualified for an extension of the qualifying period because of targeted training
Ratio Decidendi
Permission to appeal was granted and the appeal allowed because the General Division failed to take into account evidence that reasonably explained a six‑day delay, the Tribunal found the claimant received the reconsideration decision by mail about July 2, 2024, and the Commission conceded that the claimant’s targeted training extended the qualifying period resulting in a recalculation of 735 insurable hours, which satisfies the entitlement threshold for EI benefits.
Court Disposition
Permission to appeal granted; appeal allowed; claimant entitled to Employment Insurance benefits.
Orders
- Permission to appeal is granted.
- The appeal is allowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CL v Canada Employment Insurance Commission Collection Employment Insurance (EI) Decision date 2024-11-01 Neutral citation 2024 SST 1329 Reference number AD-24-617 Member Pierre Lafontaine Division Appeal Division Decision Appeal allowed Related decisions SST - CL v Canada Employment Insurance Commission - 2024 SST 1330 - 2024-08-29 - General Division Decision Content [TRANSLATION] Citation: CL v Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2024 SST 1329 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: C. L. Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission Representative: Jessica Earles Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated August 29, 2024 (GE-24-2852) Tribunal member: Pierre Lafontaine Type of hearing: Teleconference Decision date: November 1, 2024 File number: AD-24-617 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [1] Permission to appeal is given. The appeal is allowed. Overview [2] The Applicant (Claimant) stopped working on April 27, 2024. The Respondent (Commission) told him that he wasn’t entitled to Employment Insurance (EI) benefits because he needed 700 hours of insurable employment in the period from April 30, 2023, to April 27, 2024—when he had only 535 hours. [3] The Commission contacted the Claimant again and told him that he qualified for an extension of the qualifying period because of his training. A recalculation showed that he had 655 hours between February 10, 2023, and April 27, 2024. [4] The Claimant asked for the decision to be reconsidered. The Commission upheld its initial decision. He appealed to the General Division. [5] The General Division found that the Claimant appealed late. He didn’t give a reasonable explanation for why he was late. It could not give him more time to appeal. [6] In support of his application for permission to appeal, the Claimant says that he took training with Emploi‑Québec [Quebec employment services] aimed at helping people aged 50 and over to find a job. He received the decision by mail and appealed. [7] I am giving the Claimant permission to appeal, and I am allowing his appeal. Issues [8] Should permission to appeal be given? [9] Did the General Division make an error when it found that the Claimant didn’t have a reasonable explanation for why he was late? Analysis [10] After reviewing the file, I decided to hold a settlement conference. [11] The Claimant says that he took training with Emploi‑Québec aimed at helping people aged 50 and over to find a job. He received the decision by mail and appealed to the General Division. [12] The Claimant doesn’t have an email address on file. The Commission told him that he would receive the June 21, 2024, reconsideration decision by mail, and that he could appeal within 30 days. But he wasn’t told when the 30‑day period started. [13] It is reasonable to find that the Claimant received the reconsideration decision 10 days after it was sent. So, he received the Commission’s reconsideration decision by mail around July 2, 2024.Footnote 1 He appealed on August 7, 2024. He was six days late. [14] The Claimant had financial hardship. He gathered the information that he thought was necessary for his appeal, including a bank statement dated August 6, 2024. He appealed the next day. [15] The parties are of the view that the General Division didn’t consider the evidence on file when it found that the Claimant didn’t have a reasonable explanation for being only six days late. [16] I agree with the parties, and I am justified in intervening. I am giving the Claimant more time to appeal. [17] In addition, the Commission agrees that the Claimant qualifies for an extension of the qualifying period because of his targeted training. A recalculation shows that he has 735 hours of insurable employment between January 29, 2023, and April 27, 2024. This means that he is entitled to EI benefits. [18] For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the view that permission to appeal should be given and that the Claimant’s appeal should be allowed. Conclusion [19] Permission to appeal is given. The appeal is allowed. [20] The Claimant qualifies for an extension of the qualifying period because of his targeted training. A recalculation shows that he has 735 hours of insurable employment between January 29, 2023, and April 27, 2024. This means that he is entitled to EI benefits. Footnotes Footnote 1 Excluding the statutory holiday of July 1.