MG v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

MG v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The appellant rebutted the presumption of non-availability by demonstrating a consistent history of working evenings and weekends while studying and by satisfying the three-factor availability test under s.18(1)(a) (wanted to return to work, made efforts to find suitable work, and did not set personal conditions...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2023 SST 1996
Parties
Appellant: M. G.; Representative: K. G.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance (ei) Appeal / General Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Availability for Work, Training While Receiving Benefits, Disentitlement, Rebuttal of Presumption, Retroactive Verification of Entitlement
Source Language
english
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Availability for Work Training While Receiving Benefits Disentitlement Rebuttal of Presumption Retroactive Verification of Entitlement

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. G.

Appellant

K. G.

Representative

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance (ei) Appeal / General Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant was available for work while attending full-time training from September 7, 2021
  2. 2 Whether the presumption of non-availability for full-time students applies and whether it was rebutted
  3. 3 Whether the Commission disentitled the appellant under s.50(8) (reasonable and customary efforts)

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant rebutted the presumption of non-availability by demonstrating a consistent history of working evenings and weekends while studying and by satisfying the three-factor availability test under s.18(1)(a) (wanted to return to work, made efforts to find suitable work, and did not set personal conditions unduly limiting availability); the Commission did not show it requested proof under s.50(8), so disentitlement under that provision was not established, therefore the appellant is not disentitled from EI benefits from September 7, 2021 onward.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Appellant is not disentitled from receiving EI benefits from September 7, 2021 onward and may be entitled to benefits