IA v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

IA v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Tribunal found the benefit period began Sept 25, 2022 because the appellant had $390.30 in paid sick‑leave earnings allocable to the week of Sept 18 which exceeded 40% of her normal weekly earnings; consequently the COVID 420‑hour temporary measure did not apply and the appellant needed 600 hours but only had 510, so she did not qualify for EI special benefits.

Citation
2023 SST 1920
Parties
Appellant: I. A.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / General Division Decision (appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Hours of Insurable Employment, Maternity and Parental Benefits, Qualifying Period, Interruption of Earnings, Covid‑19 Temporary Measures
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Hours of Insurable Employment Maternity and Parental Benefits Qualifying Period Interruption of Earnings Covid‑19 Temporary Measures

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 7 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

I. A.

Appellant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / General Division Decision (appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant worked sufficient hours to qualify for EI special benefits
  2. 2 When the appellant's benefit period began (week of Sept 18 v. Sept 25, 2022)
  3. 3 Whether the COVID‑19 temporary 420‑hour rule applied to the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the benefit period began Sept 25, 2022 because the appellant had $390.30 in paid sick‑leave earnings allocable to the week of Sept 18 which exceeded 40% of her normal weekly earnings; consequently the COVID 420‑hour temporary measure did not apply and the appellant needed 600 hours but only had 510, so she did not qualify for EI special benefits.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed