Docket: T-1780-17
Citation: 2019 FC 972
Ottawa, Ontario, July 23, 2019
PRESENT: Mr Justice James W. O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
NICOLA VANESSA ALEXANDER
|
Applicant
|
and
|
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
In September 2013, Ms Nicola Vanessa Alexander applied for employment insurance benefits. Her application was approved. Taking into account the severance payment she received from her previous employer, Ms Alexander was entitled to benefits beginning on June 1, 2014 for a duration of 23 weeks.
[2]
On August 8, 2014, according to Ms Alexander, she asked for a suspension of her benefits because she had to leave the country to attend to family business in St Vincent. She left Canada on August 15, 2014 and returned on July 27, 2016; she sought to renew her claim on August 5, 2016.
[3]
Before she left Canada, Ms Alexander received 18 weeks of benefits out of her total entitlement of 23 weeks. This case is about whether Ms Alexander is entitled to any remaining benefits.
[4]
The Canada Employment Insurance Commission denied Ms Alexander’s request to renew her benefits. She appealed the Commission’s decision to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal (SST), which found that she could receive benefits only within a period of 52 weeks after they began. In Ms Alexander’s case, since her benefit period began in September 2013, she would normally have had to claim any outstanding benefits prior to September 2014. An extension of that period for another year might have been available, but that would allow Ms Alexander to receive benefits only until September 2015. Ms Alexander returned to Canada on July 27, 2016, well outside the benefit period.
[5]
Ms Alexander appealed the General Division’s decision to the Appeal Division of the SST, which concluded that her appeal had no reasonable chance of success and refused her application for leave to appeal.
[6]
Ms Alexander argues that the General Division applied the wrong provisions of the Employment Insurance Act, SC 1996, c 23 [EIA]. Accordingly, she argues that the Appeal Division unreasonably denied her leave to appeal. She asks me to quash the Appeal Division’s decision and order another panel of the SST to reconsider her claim.
[7]
I can find no basis for overturning the Appeal Division’s decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review. The only issue is whether the Appeal Division’s decision was unreasonable.
II.
The Statutory Scheme
[8]
The period within which a person can claim employment insurance, generally speaking, is 52 weeks, according to s 10(2) of the EIA. The Commission can cancel a benefit period if an employee shows that a new benefit period should be applied and that there is good cause for making a delayed benefit request, but only if no benefits have been paid during the usual benefit period (s 10(6)). The benefit period of 52 weeks can be extended in situations where a person was not entitled to benefits due to incarceration, severance pay, workers’ compensation, or other good cause.
A.
Was the Appeal Division’s decision unreasonable?
[9]
The Appeal Division found that Ms Alexander’s appeal had no reasonable chance of success because the maximum extension of the benefit period could extend only as far as September 15, 2015 and Ms Alexander did not return to Canada until July 27, 2016.
[10]
While Ms Alexander claims that she was informed by Commission staff that she could renew her benefit claim when she returned from abroad, there is no scenario in which an employee could authorize a benefit payment that went beyond what the statute allows. The ultimate deadline for making a claim under the Act, even with an extension, is 104 weeks from the beginning of the benefit period. Ms Alexander argues that the benefit period began when she actually started receiving benefits in June 2014, but even on that scenario, the benefit period ran until June 1, 2016, at the latest, before she returned to Canada.
[11]
In the alternative, Ms Alexander contends that she returned to Canada 102 weeks after her benefits period began and, therefore, that she was still eligible for the benefits that remained owing to her. This submission is based on the date on which Ms Alexander requested a suspension of her benefits (August 8, 2014) and the date on which she returned to Canada (July 27, 2016).
[12]
However, as mentioned above, Ms Alexander could not have requested a benefit period beginning on August 8, 2014, as she had already begun receiving benefits at that point.
[13]
Therefore, I can conceive of no scenario in which Ms Alexander would have been eligible for any further benefits after her return to Canada on July 27, 2016. Accordingly, the Appeal Division’s conclusion that Ms Alexander’s appeal had no reasonable chance of success was not unreasonable.
III.
Conclusion and Disposition
[14]
The Appeal Division’s conclusion that Ms Alexander’s appeal had no reasonable chance of success was not unreasonable. Therefore, I must dismiss this application for judicial review, with costs.
JUDGMENT IN T-1780-17
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
The style of cause is amended to name the Attorney General of Canada as respondent.
The application for judicial review is dismissed, with costs.
"James W. O'Reilly"
Judge
Annex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
|
T-1780-17
|
STYLE OF CAUSE:
|
NICOLA VANESSA ALEXANDER v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
PLACE OF HEARING:
|
Toronto, Ontario
|
DATE OF HEARING:
|
May 8, 2019
|
JUDGMENT and reasons:
|
O'REILLY J.
|
DATED:
|
July 23, 2019
|
APPEARANCES:
Ms Nicola V. Alexander
|
For The Applicant - SELF-REPRESENTED
|
Mr. Marcus Dimberger
|
For The Respondent
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
|
For The Respondent
|