Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Employment Insurance Board of Appeal Public Consultation – What we heard report

From: Employment and Social Development Canada

On this page

List of abbreviations

EI

Employment Insurance

BOA

Board of Appeal

SST

Social Security Tribunal

GD-EI

General Division Employment Insurance

CEIC

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

ESDC

Employment and Social Development Canada

List of tables

Background information

The Employment Insurance (EI) benefits program provides temporary income support to unemployed workers while they look for employment or upgrade their skills. The EI program also provides special benefits to workers who take time off work due to special life events. In order to receive EI benefits, Canadians must meet the requirements listed in the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations. When claimants or employers disagree with a decision related to an EI claim for benefits, they have the right to request a reconsideration of this decision. If still dissatisfied, Canadians can appeal that decision and have their case reviewed by a tribunal independent from Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) and the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (CEIC) who play a leadership role, with ESDC, in overseeing the Employment Insurance (EI) program.

In 2013, the Government of Canada launched the Social Security Tribunal (SST) with 2 divisions to adjudicate appeals.  The SST General Division - Employment Insurance (GD-EI) replaced the Board of Referees.  The GD-EI hears appeals of EI reconsideration decisions.

In 2019, the Government announced reforms to the SST. One of these reforms included the creation of the Board of Appeal (BOA) to replace the existing GD-EI at the SST. The intent of the BOA is to return to regionally-based tripartite decision-making panels for first level EI appeals. The regionally based tripartite panels would consist of a presiding member, along with 2 other members, one each representing workers and employers, respectively. The tripartite nature of the BOA would help ensure that membership is representative of the worker and employer communities it serves. The BOA was originally expected to launch in April 2021, however, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a decision was made to defer the implementation of the BOA to a later date.

In April 2022, the Government introduced new legislation under the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1 (Bill C-19) to establish the BOA. However, many stakeholders and parliamentarians raised concerns over the proposed legislation. The main concerns were that the proposed legislation was inadequate or silent on the following 5 important themes:

  • regional representation of Board members
  • providing the option of in-person hearings
  • distribution of full-time versus part-time members
  • reporting relationship between the BOA and the CEIC
  • authority for the appointment of the BOA’s Executive Head

On May 31, 2022, the BOA-related clauses were removed from the proposed Bill C-19. The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion committed to undertake further consultations with a goal to introduce an amended draft to the legislation.

About the consultations

Objective

To examine how the EI program can improve the appeals process by taking into consideration the opinions of various stakeholders. This is to ensure they have a role in shaping the legislation to meet the needs of Canadians.

To meet this objective, ESDC:

  1. hosted 2 virtual roundtable consultations with the EI Commissioners and external stakeholders. Some stakeholders also sent-in written submissions with their feedback on the 5 main themes
  2. invited over 10,000 former EI appellants, who appealed an EI decision between April 2018 and March 2021, to participate in a public online survey between August 19 and September 9, 2022. The online survey was also open to all Canadians

Through the survey, information was collected on aspects of the EI appeal process.

Who we consulted

  • CEIC Commissioner for Employers
  • CEIC Commissioner for Workers
  • Union representatives
  • Legal representatives
  • Community representatives
  • Employer representatives
  • All Canadians, including former EI appellants (workers and employers)

1) Roundtable consultations

ESDC, following discussions with the EI Commissioners, held 2 targeted roundtable consultations with external stakeholders. During these consultations the discussions focused on the 5 themes raised by stakeholders and parliamentarians. The discussions focused on:

  • reviewing the topics raised by stakeholders and parliamentarians
  • reviewing the intent of the previously proposed legislation in Bill C-19

A discussion guide was circulated amongst stakeholders before the consultations begun. The guide described the original structure of the draft legislation, the original intent of Bill C-19, points to consider, and offered alternatives for discussion.

Results

In total, 40 stakeholders were invited to participate in the roundtable consultations. Annex A provides a list of participating stakeholders.

Methodology

During the consultations, a departmental official:

  • introduced each theme
  • reviewed the comments and proposed amendments raised by stakeholders
  • reviewed the intent of the previously proposed legislation of Bill C-19
  • reviewed points to consider and possible alternatives for discussion

Following this, stakeholders were asked 3 specific questions for each of the 5 themes:

  1. what need is the proposed change looking to address?
  2. what are the benefits and potential challenges of the proposed alternatives?
  3. since you have a broader understanding of the original intent of Bill C-19, does the new proposal respond to your concerns or not?

What we heard – Key takeaways from roundtables

Note: The key takeaways summarized in this section highlight some of the views of stakeholders who participated in the roundtables.  It wishes to summarize their opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints. The summary of discussions offered below should not be projected as representative of the views from all stakeholders who participated in the roundtables, the entire Canadian population or of all ESDC stakeholders.

Regional representation of board members

  • Return to the Board of Referees model for member appointments where regional employees and employers recommend members
  • The proposal of only implementing 90 hearing locations in the country is not enough to cover all needs in regions, with the possible impact that members assigned to a hearing location may not originate from the appellant’s region
  • Regional representation of board members is critical as they would understand the claimants’ regional employment reality, language and expressions
  • Regional representation needs to be diverse:
    • visible minorities
    • indigenous
    • LGBTQ+, and
    • gender parity representation

Providing clients the option of in-person hearings

  • In-person hearings should be the default hearing format
  • Appellants should have flexibility in their choice of hearing format
  • People applying for benefits prefer to see the board members face-to-face
  • There are not enough hearing centres to accommodate in-person hearings
  • Clients may have to travel great distances in some areas of the country to attend an in-person hearing
  • Participants in a hearing expressed the desire to receive monetary compensation for travel and accommodation to attend an in-person hearing

Full-time versus part time tenure for members

  • The proposal of having full-time regional coordinators within the BOA to support the Executive Head and issue quick administrative decisions is widely supported
  • Full-time regional coordinators should not be part of the tripartite panels
  • The tripartite panels should consist of part-time members only

Regarding the transition of SST members to the BOA

  • Full-time SST members should not transition to the BOA as panel members on a full-time basis
  • Full-time SST members should be re-assigned to a different division of the SST as full-time members
  • In order to support the transition of members from the SST to the BOA, it was suggested to start appointing SST members to part-time tenures

Reporting relationship between the BOA and the CEIC

  • The Executive Head should report on the overall performance of the BOA to the CEIC
  • ESDC should be responsible for the operation of the BOA
  • The BOA should report directly to the CEIC regarding its operations
  • The BOA tribunal functions should remain independent
  • ESDC oversight of the BOA should apply solely to its administration and reporting
  • Roles and responsibilities need to be explicitly written in the legislation and include that the governing body is tripartite
  • As a tripartite organization, Commissioners must be part of BOA decision making process

Authority for appointment of the BOA’s executive head

  • Commissioners should lead the appointment process of members representing employers and employees as they are engaged with labour, employers and social justice partners
  • It would be beneficial if this could be included in the legislation

2) Online survey

ESDC launched a survey inviting Canadians to share their views and preferences on the design of a new process to appeal an EI benefits’ decision and how an EI appeal hearing takes place. The survey was open to all Canadians, and over 10,000 former EI appellants were invited to participate.

Results

A total of 400 respondents completed the survey. Of the 400 respondents, 386 were individuals, and 14 were representatives of an organization.

Table 1: Survey participants by region
Region Total number of survey participants
Western (British-Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) and Territories 79 out of 400
Ontario 96 out of 400
Québec 9 out of 400
Atlantic (New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador) 37 out of 400
Participants whom preferred not to identify the region they reside in 149 out of 400

What we heard – Key takeaways from online survey

The survey collected information on a number of topics pertaining to the EI appeals process. The questions and associated response rates are detailed in Annex B.

Clients ability to present arguments

The majority of clients indicated they attended their appeal hearing through virtual means (teleconference or videoconference) and they were satisfied with their ability to present their arguments during the hearing. Former SST clients indicated a greater satisfaction rate with their ability to present arguments than former Board of Referees clients.

The appeal process

In general, respondents who participated in the appeal process and received a decision in their favour indicated satisfaction with the appeal process. Respondents who participated in the appeal process and received an unfavourable decision indicated dissatisfaction with the appeal process. Dissatisfied respondents found the process too long, difficult to understand and intimidating. They also stated the tribunal needs to have a more personalized service, including taking the appellant’s form of hearing preference into consideration to ensure they are comfortable presenting arguments. Finally, several respondents believe a return to a 3-person panel to hear an appeal, emulating what once existed at the Board of Referees, is important.

Hearing type

  • 65% of respondents indicated that a virtual form of hearing offers the same opportunity to present their arguments as an in-person hearing
  • 73% of respondents stated that the form of hearing could impact the outcome
  • 70% of respondents indicated they would accept a different form of hearing then their preferred choice if it meant having the hearing at an earlier date

The results concerning the preferred type of hearing (teleconference, videoconference, in-person and written submissions) highlighted similar preference for teleconference, videoconference and in-person for the type of hearing respondents would choose. For specific results, see question 8 under Annex B.

Regional representation of board members

On average, 2 out of 3 respondents indicated a preference for board members to have local ties to their region, regardless of the hearing type. For specific results, see question 12 under Annex B.

Means of communication

The majority of respondents indicated that some form of electronic communication is their preferred method to file an appeal and receive communications. Refer to question 13 and question 14 in Annex B for more information.

Conclusion and next steps

Canadians and parliamentarians have expressed a strong need to reform and modernize the Employment Insurance appeals program. The Government of Canada has heard the importance of implementing a modernized, fair and accessible EI appeals process that respects a client’s choice on how they want to be heard.  These consultations have been a central part of developing the new legislation that was tabled on December 14, 2022.

Annex A – List of roundtable stakeholders

  • B.R.– Self Represented Paralegal and Health and Safety Officer
  • British-Columbia Community Legal Assistance Society
  • Canada’s Building Trade Union
  • Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters
  • Canadian Teachers' Federation
  • Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) National
  • Centrale des syndicats démocratiques
  • Centrale des Syndicats du Québec
  • Coalition des organismes communautaires pour le développement de la main-d'œuvre
  • Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN)
  • Conseil National des Chômeuses et Chômeurs
  • Fédération des travailleurs et des travailleuses du Québec (FTQ)
  • Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union
  • Lieu d'Actions et de Services Travaillant dans l'Unité avec les Sans emplois (L.A.S.T.U.S.E.) du Saguenay
  • Mouvement Action-Chômage de Montréal
  • National Union of Public and General Employees
  • New Brunswick Federation of Labour
  • Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour
  • Nova Scotia Federation of Labour
  • P.E.I. Federation of Labour
  • PGA Enterprises Limited
  • Saskatchewan Federation of Labour
  • Unemployed Workers Help Centre
  • Unifor
  • West Scarborough Community Legal Services

Annex B – Survey questions and results

Table 2: Results to survey question 1. Are you participating in this survey as an individual or as a representative of an organization?
Participant type Number of responses received Response rate
Individual 386 out of 400 96%
Representative of an organization 14 out of 400 4%

 

Table 3: Results to survey question 2. Have you ever filed an appeal or been involved in the appeal process for EI benefits?
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Yes 352 out of 400 88%
No 48 out of 400 12%
Table 3.1: Results to survey question 3A. Please identify the tribunal(s) that heard your appeal(s)
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Board of Referees 34 out of 352 10%
Social Security Tribunal – General Division 308 out of 352 87%
Both 10 out of 352 3%

 

Table 4: Results to survey question 3. Thinking of your most recent appeal, in what capacity did you participate?
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Claimant/appellant 332 out of 352 94%
Employer of the claimant/appellant 5 out of 352 2%
Representative for the claimant/appellant 10 out of 352 3%
Representative for the employer 1 out of 352 0%
Other 4 out of 352 1%

 

Table 5: Results to survey question 4. If your appeal required a hearing, what type of hearing did you participate in?
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
By phone 218 out of 352 62%
By videoconference from your personal computer or mobile device (MS Teams/Zoom) 68 out of 352 19%
In person 31 out of 352 9%
Other 35 out of 352 10%

 

Table 6: Results to survey question 5. Thinking about the type of hearing you had, how satisfied were you with your ability to present your arguments?
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Very satisfied 77 out of 352 22%
Satisfied 116 out of 352 33%
Dissatisfied 63 out of 352 18%
Very dissatisfied 96 out of 352 27%

 

Table 7: Results to survey question 6. What was the result of the appeal?
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
In your favour 125 out of 352 36%
Not in your favour 227 out of 352 64%

 

Table 8: Results to survey question 7. Not thinking of the result of your appeal, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the appeal process itself?
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Very satisfied 30 out of 352 9%
Satisfied 93 out of 352 26%
Dissatisfied 104 out of 352 30%
Very dissatisfied 125 out of 352 35%

Table 9A, 9B, 9C and 9D: Results to survey question 8.  If you had to file an appeal, how likely or unlikely would you request the following types of hearing?   

Table 9A: By telephone (The person filing the appeal or their representative, discusses with the members of the Board by telephone. The phone call can be made from the location of the appellant’s choice.)
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Very Likely 112 out of 400 28%
Likely 109 out of 400 27%
Unlikely 81 out of 400 20%
Very Unlikely 98 out of 400 25%

 

Table 9B: By videoconference (The person filing the appeal or their representative, discusses with the members of the Board by connecting to the videoconference from a location of the appellant’s choice. The Board members would join virtually from a different location. This option requires a high-speed internet connection.)
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Very likely 104 out of 400 26%
Likely 134 out of 400 33%
Unlikely 75 out of 400 19%
Very unlikely 87 out of 400 22%

 

Table 9C: In person (The person filing the appeal or their representative, discusses with members of the Board by visiting a local Service Canada Centre. The Board members are in-person with the appellant.)
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Very likely 147 out of 400 37%
Likely 112 out of 400 28%
Unlikely 78 out of 400 19%
Very unlikely 63 out of 400 16%

 

Table 9D: By written submission (The person filing the appeal or their representative, submits their documents to the members of the Board by mail or e-mail. The Board reviews submitted documents and request more information from the appellant as needed.)
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Very likely 92 out of 400 23%
Likely 118 out of 400 29%
Unlikely 92 out of 400 23%
Very unlikely 98 out of 400 25%

 

Table 10: Results to survey question 9. To what degree do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “A virtual hearing (for example, a videoconference like Teams or Zoom) offers the same opportunity to present your case as having an in-person hearing'
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Strongly agree 94 out of 400 24%
Agree 165 out of 400 41%
Disagree 72 out of 400 18%
Strongly disagree 69 out of 400 17%

 

Table 11: Results to survey question 10.  In your opinion, how likely or unlikely could the type of hearing (for example, in-person, videoconference, or telephone) impact on the outcome of an appeal?
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Very likely 136 out of 400 34%
Likely 155 out of 400 39%
Unlikely 70 out of 400 17%
Very unlikely 39 out of 400 10%

 

Table 12: Results to survey question 11. In your opinion, how likely or unlikely would you accept another type of hearing if it meant your hearing could be scheduled sooner?
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Very likely 126 out of 400 31%
Likely 155 out of 400 39%
Unlikely 73 out of 400 18%
Very unlikely 46 out of 400 12%

Table 13A, 13B, 13C and 13D: Results to survey question 12. When it comes to making decisions on your appeal, based on the various types of hearings, to what degree do you agree or disagree with the following statements:  (Select only one for each statement) 

Table 13A: Board members must live or have strong ties to the region in which I live for telephone hearings
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Strongly agree 124 out of 400 31%
Agree 139 out of 400 35%
Disagree 108 out of 400 27%
Strongly disagree 29 out of 400 7%

 

Table 13B: Board members must live or have strong ties to the region in which I live for videoconference hearings
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Strongly agree 113 out of 400 28%
Agree 148 out of 400 37%
Disagree 112 out of 400 28%
Strongly disagree 27 out of 400 7%

 

Table 13C:  Board members must live or have strong ties to the region in which I live for in person hearings
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Strongly agree 148 out of 400 37%
Agree 140 out of 400 35%
Disagree 91 out of 400 23%
Strongly disagree 21 out of 400 5%

 

Table 13D:  Board members must live or have strong ties to the region in which I live for hearings by written submission
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Strongly agree 115 out of 400 29%
Agree 143 out of 400 36%
Disagree 116 out of 400 29%
Strongly disagree 26 out of 400 6%

Table 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D and 14E: Results to survey question 13. If you had to file an appeal, how likely or unlikely would you be to select each of the following methods to file this appeal? Indicate your preference from very likely to very unlikely

Table 14A: By email
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Very likely 180 out of 400 45%
Likely 153 out of 400 38%
Unlikely 23 out of 400 6%
Very unlikely 44 out of 400 11%

 

Table 14B: By document upload (directly through a website)
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Very likely 133 out of 400 33%
Likely 167 out of 400 42%
Unlikely 56 out of 400 14%
Very unlikely 44 out of 400 11%

 

Table 14C: By mail
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Very likely 50 out of 400 12%
Likely 126 out of 400 32%
Unlikely 116 out of 400 29%
Very unlikely 108 out of 400 27%

 

Table 14D: By fax
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Very likely 19 out of 400 5%
Likely 61 out of 400 15%
Unlikely 96 out of 400 24%
Very unlikely 224 out of 400 56%

 

Table 14E: By visiting a Service Canada Centre in-person
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Very likely 111 out of 400 28%
Likely 128 out of 400 32%
Unlikely 78 out of 400 19%
Very unlikely 83 out of 400 21%

Table 15A, 15B, 15C, 15D and 15E: Results to survey question 14.  If you had to file an appeal, how favourable or not would you be in receiving documents and letters in each of these methods? Indicate your choice from very favourable to not at all favourable

Table 15A: By email
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Very favourable 185 out of 400 46%
Favourable 136 out of 400 34%
Somewhat favourable 43 out of 400 11%
Not at all favourable 36 out of 400 9%

 

Table 15B: By document upload (directly through a website)
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Very favourable 106 out of 400 26%
Favourable 130 out of 400 33%
Somewhat favourable 92 out of 400 23%
Not at all favourable 72 out of 400 18%

 

Table 15C: By mail
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Very favourable 81 out of 400 20%
Favourable 109 out of 400 27%
Somewhat favourable 122 out of 400 31%
Not at all favourable 88 out of 400 22%

 

Table 15D: By fax
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Very favourable 8 out of 400 2%
Favourable 31 out of 400 8%
Somewhat favourable 33 out of 400 8%
Not at all favourable 328 out of 400 82%

 

Table 15E: By visiting a Service Canada Centre in-person
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Very favourable 90 out of 400 22%
Favourable 80 out of 400 20%
Somewhat favourable 84 out of 400 21%
Not at all favourable 146 out of 400 37%

Annex C – Survey demographic statistics – Questions and responses

Table 16: Results to survey demographic question 1. To which gender do you identify?
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Female 174 out of 400 44%
Male 204 out of 400 51%
Other 1 out of 400 0%
Prefer not to answer 21 out of 400 5%

 

Table 17: Results to survey demographic question 2. Would you be willing to indicate in which of the following age categories you belong?
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
18 to 24 9 out of 400 2%
25 to 34 37 out of 400 9%
35 to 44 58 out of 400 15%
45 to 54 69 out of 400 17%
55 to 64 140 out of 400 35%
65 or older 63 out of 400 16%
Prefer not to answer 24 out of 400 6%

 

Table 18: Results to survey demographic question 3. What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Less than a High School diploma or equivalent 12 out of 400 3%
High School diploma or equivalent 55 out of 400 14%
Registered Apprenticeship or other trades certificate or diploma 24 out of 400 6%
College, CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma 112 out of 400 28%
University certificate or diploma below bachelor's level 28 out of 400 7%
Bachelor's degree 76 out of 400 19%
Post graduate degree above bachelor's level 72 out of 400 18%
Prefer not to answer 21 out of 400 5%

 

Table 19: Results to survey demographic question 4. What language do you speak most often at home?
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
English 297 out of 400 74%
French 55 out of 400 14%
Other 34 out of 400 8%
Prefer not to answer 14 out of 400 4%

 

Table 20: Results to survey demographic question 5. Can you provide the first 3 characters of your postal code? (Optional)
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Gave their postal code 251 out of 400 63%
Prefer not to answer 149 out of 400 37%

 

Table 21: Results to survey demographic question 6. Do you identify as a person with a disability?
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Yes 44 out of 400 11%
No 323 out of 400 81%
Don't know 11 out of 400 3%
Prefer not to answer 22 out of 400 5%

 

Table 22: Results to survey demographic question 7. Which of the following categories best describes your current employment status?
Participant answer Number of responses received Response rate
Working full-time, that is 35 or more hours per week 171 out of 400 43%
Working part-time, that is, less than 35 hours per week 57 out of 400 14%
Self-employed 15 out of 400 4%
Unemployed, but looking for work 51 out of 400 13%
A student attending school full-time 7 out of 400 2%
Retired 42 out of 400 10%
Not in the workforce (Full-time homemaker, unemployed, not looking for work) 10 out of 400 2%
Other 25 out of 400 6%
Prefer not to answer 22 out of 400 6%

Annex D – Additional information

Page details

Date modified: