Insurable Employment

what is 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

Employment Insurance Act Subsection 7(3)  Employment Insurance Act   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

Employment Insurance Act Section 8  Employment Insurance Act   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

Employment Insurance Act Section 17  Employment Insurance Regulations   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   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.

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 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

Canada (A.G.) v. Vautour. [1996] F.C.J. No. 1717 (F.C.A.) A-733-95 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

Valentine v. Canada (A.G.). [2000] F.C.J. No. 619 (F.C.A.) A-241-98 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

Canada (A.G.) v. Hawryluk, A-466-98 , June 29, 2000 (F.C.A.)   Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

Canada (A.G.) v. Haberman, A-717-98 , July 21, 2000 (F.C.A.)   Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

Canada (A.G.) v. Thiara, A-778-00 , December 10, 2001 (F.C.A.)   Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

Canada (A.G.) v. Tuomi, A-110-99 , September 25, 2000 (F.C.A.)   Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

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   Employment Insurance Act

Canada (A.G.) v. Kaur (1994), 167 N.R. 98 (F.C.A.) A-487-93 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

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 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

Valentine v. Canada (A.G.). [2000] F.C.J. No. 619 (F.C.A.) A-241-98 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

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.)   Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

Canada (A.G.) v. D'Astoli, A-999-96 , October 24, 1997 (F.C.A.)   Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

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 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal. A-932-96. October 31, 1997 (F.C.A.)   Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

Thibault v. C.E.I.C., A-247-96 , May 1, 1997 (F.C.A.)   Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

Canada (A.G.) v. D'Astoli, A-999-96 , October 24, 1997 (F.C.A.)   Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal

Source: www.ae-ei.gc.ca

Category: Insurance

Similar articles: