New Board to Hear EI Appeals

Summary#

Bill C-37 reshapes how Employment Insurance (EI) appeals are handled. It creates a new Employment Insurance Board of Appeal to hear EI appeals and removes the “leave to appeal” step for EI cases going to the Appeal Division. It also updates related laws and sets transition rules. Most provisions take effect on a date to be set by the federal Cabinet.

• Creates a 3‑member EI Board of Appeal with one general member, one employer representative, and one insured person (worker) representative (Clause 2).
• Lets appellants choose hearing format and sets hearings in the appellant’s region, with limited exceptions set by regulation (Clause 3).
• Sets a 30‑day deadline to file an EI appeal to the Board, with possible extension up to 1 year (Clause 3).
• Eliminates the “leave to appeal” requirement for EI appeals to the Appeal Division; grounds of appeal are limited to law, jurisdiction, serious factual error, or a remaining constitutional question (Clause 13).
• Bars the Board from deciding constitutional questions; the Appeal Division can hear new evidence on those issues (Clause 13; Clause 3).
• Ensures EI benefits continue if the Board allows a claim, even if there is a further appeal (subject to narrow exceptions) (Clause 33; Employment Insurance Act s.114).

What it means for you#

• Households (EI claimants)

  • You appeal Commission reconsideration decisions to the new Board of Appeal within 30 days of when the decision is sent to you; extensions are possible up to 1 year (Clause 3).
  • You may choose the hearing format (for example, in person, phone, or video), and hearings are held in your region unless regulations say otherwise (Clause 3).
  • If you must attend a hearing, you may be reimbursed for travel or living costs or be paid an allowance (including for lost pay), if warranted under regulations and at Treasury Board rates (Clause 3).
  • If you win at the Board and the other side appeals, your EI benefits continue during the appeal and are not recovered later, except in narrow cases (e.g., certain disentitlement appeals filed within 21 days) (Clause 33; Employment Insurance Act s.114(1)–(2)).
  • The Board cannot decide constitutional issues (for example, Charter questions). If that issue matters in your case, it can be raised at the Appeal Division, which may hear new evidence on that point (Clause 13; Clause 3).
  • If you miss contacts from the Board and your appeal is deemed abandoned, you may apply to reopen it if the Board failed to observe natural justice or your circumstances were beyond your control; you must apply within 30 days after those circumstances end (Clause 3).
  • You may be represented by a representative of your choice, at your own expense (Clause 3).

• Employers

  • Employers can be parties in EI appeals and may be appointed as employer representatives to serve on Board panels (Clause 2).
  • Each panel will include an employer representative and a worker representative alongside a presiding member (Clause 2).
  • The same 30‑day appeal deadline and regional hearing rules apply (Clause 3).

• Representatives and advocates

  • Appeals from Board decisions to the Appeal Division must be filed within 30 days; no “leave to appeal” is required for EI cases (Clause 13).
  • Grounds of appeal are limited to jurisdiction/natural justice errors, errors of law, perverse or capricious findings of fact, or a remaining constitutional question (Clause 13).
  • For non‑EI cases at the Tribunal’s General Division, leave to appeal remains required; those appeals are heard “de novo” (afresh) (Clauses 14, 20).

• Taxpayers and filers

  • The Income Tax Act is updated so reimbursements and deductions for EI appeal costs refer to the new Board of Appeal, maintaining existing tax treatment for these expenses (Clauses 30–31).

• Timing

  • Provisions come into force on dates set by Cabinet. Exact dates are not yet stated in the bill (Coming into Force).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No federal fiscal note found in the bill text. Data unavailable.
• The bill authorizes:
  • Remuneration for the Executive Head, regional coordinators, and members, set by the Governor in Council (Clause 2).
  • Travel and living expenses for the Executive Head, regional coordinators, and part‑time members per Treasury Board directives (Clause 2).
  • Reimbursement or allowances (including lost pay) for parties required to attend hearings, per Treasury Board rates and regulations (Clause 3).
  • Departmental staff, services, and facilities to support the Board, provided by the Minister (Clause 2).
• The Income Tax Act changes update references to include the new Board for reimbursements and deductions; they do not set new rates (Clauses 30–31).
• No direct appropriations or multi‑year budget amounts are specified in the bill. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Improves accessibility and participation: hearings in the appellant’s region, appellant selects format, and possible reimbursement or allowances reduce barriers to attending hearings (Clause 3).
• Restores balanced input: each panel includes an employer representative and a worker representative, alongside a presiding member, with attention to regional representation and diversity (Clause 2).
• Simplifies EI appeal path: removes the leave‑to‑appeal step for EI cases going to the Appeal Division, reducing one procedural hurdle (Clause 13).
• Clarifies appeal standards: sets defined grounds of appeal for Board decisions, focusing on law, jurisdiction, and serious factual errors, which can aid consistency (Clause 13).
• Protects claimants during further appeals: when the Board allows benefits, payments continue and are not clawed back even if the final outcome later changes, subject to narrow exceptions (Clause 33; Employment Insurance Act s.114).
• Sets timelines: a 30‑day filing window for Board appeals, with strict outer limits, which may promote timely resolution (Clause 3).

Opponents' View#

• Independence concerns: the Executive Head reports on Board performance to the EI Commission, and the Commission appoints employer and worker members, even though Commission decisions are the ones under appeal (Clause 2). Critics may see a perceived conflict of interest.
• Consistency risk: regional assignment and lay member panels could lead to uneven decisions across regions or panels; much depends on training and guidance set by the Executive Head (Clause 2). Assumption noted.
• Potential for higher caseload at the Appeal Division: removing the leave‑to‑appeal screen for EI may allow more appeals to proceed, which could strain capacity and extend timelines unless resources are increased (Clause 13). Assumption noted.
• Unsettled procedures: many key details (private hearings, decision timelines, expense criteria, conflicts of interest) are left to future regulations, so user experience and timelines remain uncertain until those are made (Clause 23; Clause 24).
• Added administrative costs: new leadership roles, member remuneration, and party allowances create ongoing operating costs, but no public cost estimate is provided (Clause 2; Clause 3). Data unavailable.