Federal Court affirms Employment Insurance Commission’s decision to disentitle EI benefits

In the complex realm of administrative law, the recent ruling by the Federal Court sheds light on the intricacies of employment insurance (EI) entitlements. Mr. Puig, an international student seeking regular EI benefits, found himself embroiled in a legal dispute after being disentitled from benefits in March 2021 due to study permit restrictions. Exploring the intricate issues of policy interpretation, evidentiary requirements, and judicial discretion, this case encapsulates the challenges faced by individuals navigating the complexities of administrative processes (Puig v. Canada (Attorney General), [2024] F.C.J. No. 517.


Puig, an international student residing in Canada, sought regular employment insurance benefits. After his application was approved, he received benefits until February 2021. However, in March 2021, he was notified that he was disentitled from benefits due to restrictions on his study permit, resulting in an overpayment.

Upon reviewing Puig’s application for judicial review, the Federal Court upheld the decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal (ADSST), affirming the Employment Insurance Commission’s decision to disentitle Puig from benefits due to non-availability for work based on study permit restrictions. The court found that the ADSST’s conclusion was reasonable, as it acknowledged that the commission had exercised its discretion judicially. The court also highlighted that the ADSST found no evidence of bad faith or improper purpose on the part of the commission and concluded that it had considered all relevant information in deciding to reconsider the claim. Ultimately, the Federal Court dismissed Puig’s application for judicial review.


The crux of Puig’s case revolved around the following key issues:

(1) Application of Reconsideration Policy:

Puig contested the commission’s decision, arguing that it did not adhere to its established policy framework for reconsideration of claims. The ADSST recognized that none of the factors in the commission’s policy justified reconsideration of Puig’s claim. Despite Puig’s honest reporting of his schooling and the debt’s creation through no fault of his own, the policy lacked guidance on the interaction between 153.161 and the commission’s discretion under s.52 of the Employment Insurance Act (EIA).

The ADSST opined that s. 153.161(2) prioritized entitlement verification over information accuracy. It suggested that the legislature envisaged scenarios where the commission could reconsider claims for students in non-referred training, even if accurate information was initially provided, especially when verification was requested, and the claimant failed to demonstrate their entitlement. While empathetic to Puig’s unfortunate situation, the court concluded that the ADSST’s decision was based on a coherent and rational analysis.

(2) Lack of fresh evidentiary input: 

Another key aspect of Puig’s challenge was the assertion that the commission reconsidered his claim without requiring fresh evidentiary input. The ADSST found that the commission can initially decide on entitlement based on claimant statements, deferring verification for a later date. If verification is later sought and the claimant fails to prove entitlement, the commission can reconsider the claim under S. 52 of the EIA. The court found that this provision focuses on entitlement verification rather than accuracy, allowing reconsideration even if accurate information was provided initially.

(3) Judicial exercise of discretion: 

Puig also raised concerns regarding the judicial exercise of discretion by the commission in managing his case. Puig argued that despite facing hardship due to circumstances beyond his control, such as misinformation and delays in processing, the commission did not adequately consider these factors.

The court found that while Puig faced genuine hardship, it didn’t preclude the commission from judicially exercising its discretion and there was no evidence of bad faith in the commission’s actions. Further, the court found that claimants can’t rely on misinformation contrary to the law and that the commission’s delay in verifying his claim was within the time frame imposed by the EIA.

However, the court highlighted that Puig is not left without avenues for relief, as he has the option to ask the commission for a write-off on the basis of financial hardship, with the decision on the appropriateness of the relief resting with the commission.


The Federal Court’s affirmation of the decision regarding Puig’s employment insurance claim underscores the importance of carefully examining the interaction between policy frameworks and statutory provisions. Importantly, this case serves as a reminder of the need for clarity and consistency in policy interpretation and application. The court’s findings reaffirm the authority of administrative bodies like the Employment Insurance Commission to exercise its discretion judicially.

This article was written by Emily Kim, Employment Lawyer at Monkhouse Law and was originally published in Law360 Canada on May 10, 2024.

Monkhouse Law is an employment law firm in Toronto that focuses on employee issues. Call us at 416-907-9249 or fill out this quick form. We offer a free 30-minute phone consultation.

    Free Consultation

    Call us for a free 30 minute phone consultation at 416-907-9249 or submit a callback request. We endeavor to phone you back once we have reviewed the information, calls will be Monday to Friday between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM:


    Monkhouse Law