Insurable Employment
I. The Legislation
The Employment Insurance Act requires a claimant to have a certain number of hours of insurable employment. A new entrant or re-entrant to the labour force must have nine-hundred and ten (910) hours or more of insurable employment in his or her qualifying period.
Section 7 Employment Insurance Act
Subsection 7(3) Employment Insurance Act
A new entrant or re-entrant to the labour force is defined in the legislation. Whether a claimant is a new entrant or re-entrant depends upon his or her situation during the fifty-two (52) weeks immediately preceding the commencement of his or her qualifying period. The qualifying period is the shorter of: (1) the fifty-two (52) weeks preceding the commencement of the claim; or (2) the period between the start of a prior benefit claim and the start of the new benefit claim. The qualifying period can be extended if the criteria set out in the legislation are met. However, the maximum length of a qualifying period is one-hundred and four (104) weeks.
Subsections 7(3) & (4) Employment Insurance Act
Section 8 Employment Insurance Act
A person who is not a new entrant or re-entrant is also required to have a certain number of hours of insurable employment during his or her qualifying period. However, the number of hours depends upon the regional rate of unemployment for the region in which the claimant is ordinarily resident.
Subsection 7(2) Employment Insurance Act
Section 17 Employment Insurance Regulations
II. Definition of Insurable Employment
The legislation distinguishes between two types of employment; "insurable" and "excluded". Employment falls into either one of these two categories. Benefits are payable to those persons who were engaged in insurable employment. Both terms are defined in the Act. Generally speaking, insurable employment is employment under a contract of service.
Section 5 Employment Insurance Act
III. Determination of Insurable Employment
If there is any question as to whether employment is "insurable", an application may be made to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency for a determination. Any appeal from the Minister's decision must be made to the Tax Court of Canada. The Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency may also make a ruling with respect to how many hours a person has had in insurable employment.
Sections 90 & 103 Employment Insurance Act
The question as to whether and for how long a claimant has been in insurable employment is one which neither a Board of Referees nor an Umpire has jurisdiction to decide. The legislation specifically states that such a question shall be determined by an authorized officer of the Department of National Revenue.
Canada (A.G.) v. Kaur (1994), 167 N.R. 98 (F.C.A.) A-487-93
Canada (A.G.) v. Vautour , [1996] F.C.J. No. 1717 (F.C.A.) A-733-95
Valentine v. Canada (A.G.) , [2000] F.C.J. No. 619 (F.C.A.) A-241-98
Canada (A.G.) v. Hawryluk, A-466-98, June 29, 2000 (F.C.A.)
Canada (A.G.) v. Haberman, A-717-98, July 21, 2000 (F.C.A.)
Canada (A.G.) v. Thiara, A-778-00, December 10, 2001 (F.C.A.)
Canada (A.G.) v. Tuomi, A-110-99, September 25, 2000 (F.C.A.)
Once the Minister makes a ruling, the proper appeal procedure is to launch an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada within ninety (90) days from the date the Minister's decision is communicated to the appealing party. Proceedings cannot be commenced in the Federal Court asking it to review the Minister's determination. Furthermore, neither a Board of Referees nor an Umpire has jurisdiction to review the Minister's ruling with respect to insurability of employment.
Section 103 Employment Insurance Act
Canada (A.G.) v. Kaur (1994), 167 N.R. 98 (F.C.A.) A-487-93
Rotopak International Compactors v. R., T-258-87, June 15, 1987 (F.C.T.D.)
Canada (A.G.) v. Vautour , [1996] F.C.J. No. 1717 (F.C.A.) A-733-95
Valentine v. Canada (A.G.) , [2000] F.C.J. No. 619 (F.C.A.) A-241-98
Once it is determined that employment is insurable the Commission must establish the benefit period for the claimant and thereafter benefit is payable to him or her for each week of unemployment that falls in that period.
Thibault v. C.E.I.C., A-247-96, May 1, 1997 (F.C.A.)
Canada (A.G.) v. D'Astoli, A-999-96, October 24, 1997 (F.C.A.)
The question of insurability must be determined by the Minister of National Revenue, and if an appeal is launched, by the Tax Court of Canada. It relates to the qualifying period. The question of entitlement to benefit however, must be decided by the Commission itself, and if there is an appeal, by the Board of Referees. It relates to the benefit period. The determination made with respect to insurability is not binding on the Commission when it makes its determination with respect to entitlement.
Canada (A.G.) v. Rouleau, A-930-96, A-932-96, October 31, 1997 (F.C.A.)
Thibault v. C.E.I.C., A-247-96, May 1, 1997 (F.C.A.)
Canada (A.G.) v. D'Astoli, A-999-96, October 24, 1997 (F.C.A.)