Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review sought of the Social Security Tribunal’s Appeal Division decision refusing leave to appeal on Employment Insurance eligibility.

• Dispute over whether pay in lieu of notice should be included in calculating insurable hours and the qualifying period for EI benefits.

• Determination of the proper qualifying period and whether statutory criteria for extension were met.

• Binding effect of a Canada Revenue Agency ruling on insurable hours and the applicant’s failure to appeal that ruling.

• Reliance on complementary legislation outside the Employment Insurance Act found to be legally irrelevant.

• No reviewable errors or procedural unfairness identified by the court in the tribunal’s process.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties

The case involves Volodymyr Hrabovskyy, a self-represented applicant, and the Attorney General of Canada as the respondent. Hrabovskyy sought judicial review of a decision by the Social Security Tribunal’s Appeal Division, which had refused him leave to appeal a decision of the Tribunal’s General Division. The underlying dispute centered on Hrabovskyy’s eligibility for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits following his termination from Health Canada, where he received one month’s pay in lieu of notice.

Employment history and EI application

During 2023, Hrabovskyy worked for two employers: Air Canada and Health Canada. He accumulated 328 insurable hours with Air Canada and 270 with Health Canada. After his termination from Health Canada, he applied for EI benefits. The Employment Insurance Commission determined that he did not have the required 700 insurable hours within the qualifying period to be eligible for benefits, as he only had a total of 598 hours. Hrabovskyy argued that his pay in lieu of notice should count as additional insurable hours and that his qualifying period should be extended accordingly.

Tribunal and CRA involvement

The General Division of the Social Security Tribunal upheld the Commission’s decision, finding that the qualifying period and insurable hours were correctly calculated. The Tribunal relied on a ruling from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), which confirmed the number of insurable hours. The Tribunal also found that Hrabovskyy did not meet the statutory criteria for extending the qualifying period. Hrabovskyy appealed to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division, which denied leave to appeal, concluding there was no reasonable chance of success on the grounds raised.

Judicial review and legal analysis

Hrabovskyy then sought judicial review in Federal Court, arguing that the Tribunal erred in law by not including his pay in lieu of notice in the calculation of insurable hours and by not extending his qualifying period. He also relied on various human rights and labour statutes outside the Employment Insurance Act. The court reviewed the relevant provisions of the Employment Insurance Act and Regulations, confirming that pay in lieu of notice is not included in the calculation of insurable hours for EI purposes. The court also found that the CRA’s ruling on insurable hours was binding and that the applicant had not pursued the available appeal process for that ruling.

Outcome

The court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding no reviewable errors in the Tribunal’s process or reasoning. The Attorney General of Canada was the successful party. No costs or damages were awarded to either party.