EM v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

EM v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Claimant failed to prove availability under s.18(1)(a) because he did not demonstrate a desire to increase hours beyond his casual 12-hour workweek, his job search efforts were insufficient and casual, and he imposed personal scheduling conditions tied to classes (including selecting on application that he would delay a job start to finish courses), thereby unduly limiting his chances of finding suitable work; accordingly the Commission's disentitlement as of September 8, 2021 is upheld.

Citation
2022 SST 627
Parties
Appellant: E. M.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / General Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Availability for Work, Student Availability, Disentitlement, Job Search Requirements
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Availability for Work Student Availability Disentitlement Job Search Requirements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. M.

Appellant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / General Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the claimant available for work under s.18(1)(a) of the Employment Insurance Act?
  2. 2 Does the presumption of non-availability for full-time students apply to the claimant?
  3. 3 Did the claimant set personal conditions that unduly limited his chances of finding work?

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to prove availability under s.18(1)(a) because he did not demonstrate a desire to increase hours beyond his casual 12-hour workweek, his job search efforts were insufficient and casual, and he imposed personal scheduling conditions tied to classes (including selecting on application that he would delay a job start to finish courses), thereby unduly limiting his chances of finding suitable work; accordingly the Commission's disentitlement as of September 8, 2021 is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; Commission's disentitlement from receiving EI regular benefits as of September 8, 2021 is upheld.