Qualifying Period

I. The Legislation

The Employment Insurance Act requires claimants to have a certain number of hours of insurable employment in their qualifying period in order to be entitled to benefits.

Section 7 Employment Insurance Act

The qualifying period is the period in which a claimant must accumulate sufficient hours of insurable employment in order to establish a claim for benefits. 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.

Section 8 Employment Insurance Act

A new entrant or re-entrant to the labour force must have 910 hours or more of insurable employment in his or her qualifying period.

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 can be extended if the criteria set out in the legislation are met. However, the maximum length of a qualifying period is 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 hours of insurable employment during their qualifying period. However, the number 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

The legislation defines a "week" as a period of seven consecutive days beginning on and including Sunday.

Subsection 2(1) Employment Insurance Act

II. Definition of Qualifying Period

Gagnon v. C.E.I.C., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 29 (S.C.C.) File no. 19529 A-1059-84

A "qualifying period" refers to the fifty-two (52) weeks during which a claimant held employment before becoming unemployed. This period determines the period of his or her eligibility for benefits. For example, if during those fifty-two (52) weeks a claimant did not hold insurable employment he or she will not be eligible for benefits.

Gagnon v. C.E.I.C., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 29 (S.C.C.) File no. 19529 A-1059-84

III. Extension of Qualifying Period

a. Generally

Subsection 8(2) of the Employment Insurance Act provides for an extension of the qualifying period where a claimant can establish that he or she was not working by reason of:

illness, injury, quarantine or pregnancy;
confined in jail, penitentiary or other similar institution;
receiving assistance under employment benefits;
in receipt of payments under a provincial law on the basis of having ceased to work for the reason that continuing to work would have entailed danger to the person, the person's unborn child or a child whom the person is breast-feeding.

These circumstances have a common feature in that they are all concerned with situations where the claimant is not available for work because of circumstances beyond his or her control.

Subsection 8(2) Employment Insurance Act

Crupi v. C.E.I.C., [1986] 3 F.C. 3 (F.C.A.) A-451-85
Garland v. C.E.I.C., [1985] 2 F.C. 508 (F.C.A.) A-1132-84

The purpose of the legislation is to provide benefits to people who, for legitimate reasons, have become unemployed. Therefore, the legislation permits the extension of the qualification period for certain legitimate reasons.

Canada (A.G.) v. Xuan, [1994] 2 F.C. 348 (F.C.A.) A-1393-92

The extension provisions of the Act do not apply to claimants engaged in fishing. This does not constitute a violation of the equality rights guaranteed by section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Clarke v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1990), 111 N.R. 360 (F.C.A.) A-295-89

b. Extension of Qualifying Period because of Quarantine

The word "quarantine" in paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Employment Insurance Act is related to illness or injury.

Deigan v. Canada (A.G.), A-114-98, September 30, 1998 (F.C.A.)

c. Extension due to Confined in Jail, Penitentiary, or Similar Institution

In order to determine if a person is an inmate of a prison or similar institution, the nature of the institution itself must be considered. "Similar institution" means something very closely resembling a prison. Some common features or points of resemblance are not sufficient. The question which must be answered is what is the reason, purpose or object of the confinement. For example, the section has been held not to apply to an individual remanded to a mental hospital prior to trial, where the detention is not custodial or punitive.

Crupi v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1986] 3 F.C. 3 (F.C.A.) A-451-85

The legislation does include those prisoners who, while not physically confined, are not available for employment. It has been held that the provision "must necessarily include those prisoners who, while not still remaining in physical confinement, are nevertheless still within the class since they are not yet available for employment." Therefore, a person released from prison on temporary absence, required to live on his parents' farm and subject to supervision by a probation officer and other conditions, was considered to be "confined" within the meaning of this provision because he "was just as institutionalized on the facts of this case as if he were confined to a building built for the purpose of confining prisoners."

Garland v. C.E.I.C., [1985] 2 F.C. 508 (F.C.A.) A-1132-84
Canada (A.G.) v. Xuan, [1994] 2 F.C. 348 (F.C.A.) A-1393-92