LA v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

LA v Canada Employment Insurance Commission Collection Employment Insurance (EI) Decision date 2024-08-02 Neutral citation 2024 SST 1171 Reference number GE-24-1975 Member Nathalie Léger Division General Division Decision Appeal dismissed Related decisions SST - LA v Canada Employment Insurance Commission - 2024 SST 1170 - 2024-10-03 - Appeal Division Subjects EI - Earnings - Allocation Decision Content Citation: LA v Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2024 SST 1171 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division Employment Insurance Section Decision Appellant: L. A. Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission Decision under appeal: Canada Employment Insurance Commission reconsideration decision (657307) dated April 12, 2024 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: Nathalie Léger Type of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: July 22, 2024 Hearing participant: Appellant Decision date: August 2, 2024 File number: GE-24-1975 On this page Decision Overview Matter I have to consider first Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [1] The appeal is dismissed. The Appellant received earnings. And the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) allocated (in other words, assigned those earnings to the right weeks. Overview [2] The Appellant did not declare all the earnings she got from her employers. She says it was really difficult to keep track as her employers were not providing her with the pay stubs as they should have. Those should have been available through a web service but were not made available to her. [3] The law says that all earnings have to be allocated to certain weeks. What week’s earnings are allocated to depends on why you received the earnings.Footnote 1 The Commission allocated the earnings on the weeks for which the work was done by the Appellant. [4] The Appellant says that she is in a difficult financial situation right now and cannot repay the money owed. Also, she says that she should not be penalized for having been misinformed by Service Canada agents. Matter I have to consider first The Appellant says that not all documents are on file [5] The Appellant told me at the hearing that she had filed with the Commission a document explaining in detail why she had not correctly declared all of her earnings. Because the document was not included in those sent to the Tribunal, I asked the Commission to send me a copy.Footnote 2 [6] The Commission answered that after doing a thorough search, it could not find such a document. Because it is not determinative of the issue, I have decided to proceed with the decision even if this document is not available. Issues [7] I have to decide the following two issues: a) Is the money that the Appellant received earnings? b) If the money is earnings, did the Commission allocate the earnings correctly? Analysis Is the money that the Appellant received earnings? [8] Yes, the money that the Appellant received is earnings. Here are my reasons for deciding that the money is earnings. [9] The law says that earnings are the entire income that you get from any employment.Footnote 3 The law defines both “income” and “employment.” [10] Income can be anything that you got or will get from an employer or any other person. It doesn’t have to be money, but it often is.Footnote 4 [11] Employment is any work that you did or will do under any kind of service or work agreement.Footnote 5 [12] The Appellant has to prove that the money is not earnings. The Appellant has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means that she has to show that it is more likely than not that the money isn’t earnings. [13] The Appellant’s worked part-time at two different jobs. She had to take time off work because she became sick twice because of COVID. She does not dispute that she received those amounts or that they are exact. I see no evidence to contradict this. This means the money the Appellant received is income (earnings) because it arose from her employment. [14] This means that the Commission could allocate (deduct) these earnings from her weekly EI benefits.Footnote 6 [15] The Appellant says that she contacted Service Canada multiple times to know how to report her earnings and hours worked since she was not getting the correct information from her employer. She says she was told that it didn’t matter if she didn’t report the exact amounts because the Commission would get it from her employer eventually. [16] She claims that it is unfair to make her repay benefits she received because she did not correctly declare earnings when she could not get the correct information and had been told to do what she could. She also claims to be in a difficult financial position at the moment preventing her from repaying this debt. [17] The Appellant claims that she has been told that if she had answered more quickly to the first letter sent to the wrong address by the Commission, they could have written off some of her debt. This information is incorrect. Section 56 of the EI Regulations says that a write-off is not possible when the overpayment arises from an error of the claimant or a false statement relating to earnings. Therefore, if she had gotten the letter sooner, it would not have changed anything regarding the possibility to get a write-off from the Commission for part or all of her debt. [18] Unfortunately, the fact that the Appellant got a wrong information from the Commission (or Service Canada) does not change the application of the law. The Act is very clear: when earnings are received, they have to be allocated. The Commission does not have a choice in the matter.Footnote 7 [19] Furthermore, the fact that the Appellant relied on incorrect information given to her by an agent does not allow me to apply the law differently. The law is clear and the earnings had to be allocated. Did the Commission allocate the earnings correctly? [20] The Appellant does not deny that the Commission allocated her earnings correctly. After carefully reviewing her file, I see no evidence to the contrary. The files were allocated to the weeks where the work for which she was paid was done, which is correct. [21] Therefore, I conclude the Commission allocated the earnings correctly. Conclusion [22] The appeal is dismissed. [23] The Appellant can contact the Canada Revenu Agency to discuss the possibility of a write-off or to negotiate better repayment modalities. The contact information can be found on the Notice of debt. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 36 of the Employment Insurance Regulations (EI Regulations). Footnote 2 See GD5. Footnote 3 See section 35(2) of the EI Regulations. Footnote 4 See section 35(1) of the EI Regulations. Footnote 5 See section 35(1) of the EI Regulations. Footnote 6 See section 36 of the EI Regulations. It says that earnings have to be allocated to certain weeks, depending on why they were paid. Footnote 7 See section 36 of the EI Regulations. See also Boone et al v Canada (AG), 2002 FCA 257