Recent case sees worker denied EI because of comment on Record of Employment
A single line in the comment box of a routine payroll form ended up with a laid-off worker losing his employment insurance (EI) but two tribunal levels ended up reversing the decision.
On June 23, 2026, the Social Security Tribunal of Canada's Appeal Division allowed a roofing worker's appeal against the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, ruling he was never disqualified from benefits.
Tribunal member Solange Losier found the Commission had not proven the worker voluntarily left his job, and replaced the General Division's decision with her own.
ROE for roofing job
The worker had roofed for the same company since September 2023, typically working whenever the weather cooperated. In July 2025, though, the work dried up. His last paid day was July 10, and after about two weeks with no shifts, he reached out to his boss.
New to Canada and, by his own account, someone who didn't "know the rules," the worker texted his boss on July 24 and emailed the next day to say he quit, asking for the "necessary papers to get unemployment benefits."
When the employer finally issued a Record of Employment (ROE) on Sept. 12, the form gave the reason for the separation as a shortage of work, with a last paid day of July 10.
But the comment box told a different story: "Did not return back to work—quit as of September 12th, 2025."
The Commission seized on that comment. It decided the worker had voluntarily left without just cause, as he had refused to resume work on Sept. 12, and disqualified him from benefits as of Sept. 7, the Sunday of that week.
A few days later, the employer issued an amended ROE. It kept the shortage-of-work reason and changed the comment box to state the worker was still on layoff.
Losier found the employer had made an error in the original comment and had told the Commission as much.
Separation from employment
On appeal, Losier saw the dispute differently. The burden was on the Commission to show the departure was voluntary, and she found it had not. The worker's last day was July 10, the separation was driven by a shortage of work, and he had wanted to keep working.
As she put it, "The employer had already initiated the separation from employment."
She gave no weight to the July 25 email. By then, she found, there was nothing to resign from. Later evidence backed this up. The employer recalled the worker in December, describing it as a return after a layoff. The record also showed the employer had advertised a job at a higher wage during the same period.
Losier also weighed that the worker was new to Canada, that English was not his first language, and that he had asked the Commission for an interpreter. In her view, he had not understood he did not need to "quit" to collect benefits once his earnings had been interrupted. The worker, she concluded, "didn't have a choice to stay or leave his job."
His appeal was allowed, ending the disqualification.
