Employment Insurance after articling

[FellowTraveler]

1 minute ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

"We can't afford housing"

Oh he's a crypto bro. Please ignore everything I've said, the pure entertainment value of this exceeds all the fraud you will commit in the long and illustrious career ahead of you.

[chaboywb]

3 hours ago, Dinsdale said:

Don't Bay Street firms pay returning articling students during this period anyway?  They used to, back when there was a "Bar Admission course".  I guess that is a thing of the past.

I could be mixing up some concepts here, but when articling salary in Toronto was increased from $1700 per week to $1900 per week, some amounts previously paid to articling students (ie. the Bar study stipend, a returning articling student bonus) were cut. I believe the result was that students came close to breaking even in terms of total compensation. 

4 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

"We can't afford housing"

Ah, BQ coming through with the deep cut receipts. I was about to hit send on a response about the relative privilege of assuming that all incoming Bay Street associates can simply forego three months of income (with no comment on the actual legality of claiming EI, as I'd assume there are close to zero of those individuals actively seeking employment during their post-articling summer) but have somehow lost my appetite for that...

[canuckfanatic]

1 hour ago, QueensDenning said:

god forbid we tap into the EI we’ve paid into

...that you're clearly not eligible for? Tf?

[Vizslaw]

I'm just going to add that people are free to roll the dice with their livelihoods, but fair warning:

The Law Society views fraud allegations as cases where the presumptive penalty is revocation, regardless of the amount of money at issue or any aggravating factors. In one case, a paralegal helped clients submit false insurance claims and received a commission (of approx. $1,000 total) based on those false claims, and had their licence revoked.

So yeah... don't do the insurance fraud.

 

Sincerely,

a lawyer who represents lawyers

[loonie]

I believe lots of the ambiguity with how the EI system works in Canada is that seasonal workers have been found in the past to be permitted to claim EI benefits during the off season as long as they satisfy all of the requirements. The most contentious being the one brought up: be actively searching for work. 

However, what I have not seen been mentioned, at least explicitly yet, is that the work they are required to search is seemingly satisfied to only be for the off-season. Therefore, they are not required to be actively searching for work that would lead into their "on-season." If we are saying the temporary duration of time an Articling Student is without work while waiting for Associate position to start is analogous to a seasonal worker then they would only have to be actively searching for work for that temporary time period, which it is very likely that no organization or firm is going to offer full-time work to an individual for such a short-time period. There is very little job postings for such temporary work, so if an individual can show proof that they have been searching for such jobs (likely easy to satisfy with a couple documented cold emails every week to organizations and firms), they may be, in fact, not committing EI fraud and using it within its permitted scope. 

Now, I could easily be wrong about this, but this ambiguity has lead to why its becoming more common for those using EI in such a manner. Although I will not personally be using EI during this time, I believe there is more of a conversation to be had than just saying it is automatically EI fraud for those doing so. 

Edited March 19 by loonie

[FellowTraveler]

5 minutes ago, loonie said:

I believe lots of the ambiguity with how the EI system works in Canada is that seasonal workers have been found in the past to be permitted to claim EI benefits during the off season as long as they satisfy all of the requirements. The most contentious being the one brought up: be actively searching for work. 

However, what I have not seen be mentioned, at least explicitly yet, is that the work they are required to search is seemingly satisfied to only be for the off-season. Therefore, they are not required to be actively searching for work that would lead into their "on-season." If we are saying the temporary duration of time an Articling Student is without work while waiting for Associate position to start is analogous to a seasonal worker then they would only have to be actively searching for work for that temporary time period, which it is very likely that no organization or firm is going to offer full-time work to an individual for such a short-time period. There is very little job postings for such temporary work, so if an individual can show proof that they have been searching for such jobs (likely easy to satisfy with a couple documented cold emails every week to organizations and firms), they may be, in fact, not committing EI fraud and using it within its permitted scope. 

Now, I could easily be wrong about this, but this ambiguity has lead to why its becoming more common for those using EI in such a manner. Although I will not be doing so, I believe there is more of a conversation to be had than just saying it is automatically EI fraud for those doing so. 

Articling is not "seasonal employment". Every piece of documentation about it talks about "fluctuating weather patterns" and "Canada's geography" that makes certain types of labour impossible to carry on year-round. Sure, pinning down the exact boundary of what is and isn't seasonal labour is difficult... but this one isn't.

In this situation, you've finished one job contract and have already accepted a second job contract that won't start for 2 months. I'm looking at the application portal right now and to select "regular benefits" you need to assert that you "lost your job" and "can't find a job". Can you lie and go through with it anyway? Sure, but I wish there was a word to describe that sort of thing.

[loonie]

50 minutes ago, FellowTraveler said:

Articling is not "seasonal employment". Every piece of documentation about it talks about "fluctuating weather patterns" and "Canada's geography" that makes certain types of labour impossible to carry on year-round. Sure, pinning down the exact boundary of what is and isn't seasonal labour is difficult... but this one isn't.

In this situation, you've finished one job contract and have already accepted a second job contract that won't start for 2 months. I'm looking at the application portal right now and to select "regular benefits" you need to assert that you "lost your job" and "can't find a job". Can you lie and go through with it anyway? Sure, but I wish there was a word to describe that sort of thing.

That's not true. Teachers have been found to fall under seasonal employment and that has nothing to do with what you mentioned. In most cases, substitute teachers could claim regular EI benefits during non-teaching periods. There are instances where full-time teachers could also claim EI benefits during the non-teaching period if they have not already signed a "repetitive 10-month contract" for the upcoming year. The reason it is worded like that is because one of the key distinguishing factors whether they will be entitled to EI is whether they made the full annual salary of a teacher spread over those 10 months. If so, they will not be entitled, but if they did not, and there is not a pattern of repetitive contracts, then they may still be entitled to EI benefits over the non-teaching period. Surely, if this is the case, then there is even more of an argument for Articling Students who are not paid a salary spread out to be equivalent to a full 12-month annual term and are signing an entirely different contract for an entirely different role. 

Also, yes, the portal says you must have "lost your job (due to shortage of work, or seasonal or mass-lay offs)"....Again, I think this could be satisfied here without lying. Just because you know the date your contract will be terminated does not mean you are not entitled to EI or make it your fault you cannot find temporary employment. And once again, I think there is a valid argument to be made that these individuals "can't find a job" that is suitable to satisfy their off-season schedule and hence are permitted to use EI. If so, they will still have to mitigate such factors and attempt to find work for that temporary off-season time, but that is pretty much semantics, because they likely will not be able to find any. 

Edited March 19 by loonie

[Pantalaimon]

I wonder what happened to my (depressingly many) law school colleagues that claimed CERB even though we were in law school.

[Kibitzer]

Moving away from the the situation of an articling student, It strikes me as odd from a policy perspective, that an individual making a low income, who loses their job, is eligible for EI, receives EI, looks for a job and finally finds one but the start date isn't for 3 weeks, can no longer receive EI once they are offered and have accepted that job. I would imagine that would incentivize that individual to not take the job and instead wait until they find a job with an immediate start date to avoid the loss of 3 weeks without any income. 

 

 

[Turtles]

55 minutes ago, Kibitzer said:

Moving away from the the situation of an articling student, It strikes me as odd from a policy perspective, that an individual making a low income, who loses their job, is eligible for EI, receives EI, looks for a job and finally finds one but the start date isn't for 3 weeks, can no longer receive EI once they are offered and have accepted that job. I would imagine that would incentivize that individual to not take the job and instead wait until they find a job with an immediate start date to avoid the loss of 3 weeks without any income. 

 

 

That's why that's not the policy. EI requirements are largely qualified by reasonableness and suitability, bringing in context, rather than absolute brightlines. This thread misses much of the nuance that does exist in EI policy. 

In relation to seasonal workers, ESDC explicitly tells claimants that the general obligation to seek suitable employment only requires them to seek suitable employment for the temporary period until they return to work for the start of next season's contract:  "Even if you have a job to return to in the spring/summer, you are still required to be willing to seek and accept temporary employment, conduct reasonable job search activities and document those activities for the duration of your claim." If such claimants take bona fide reasonable job search efforts to find suitable employment, then the fact employers aren't keen to take on a temporary worker is not a bar to EI, so long as they tried. The obligation is trying, not succeeding. 

It should go without saying non-seasonal claimants with a future contract date who would, genuinely, take suitable employment in the summer after articling, but are unable to because most suitable employers (e.g., big law compensation, for someone who articled in big law) will not hire someone of their level with a start date before the usual post-summer new associates start date, are not barred by the obligation to seek and acceptable suitable work simply because none exists. The obligation, again, is trying, not necessarily succeeding. But as raised by others, if someone isn't trying, then obviously they haven't satisfied the obligation on them to receive EI, and would be lying when they do reports every two weeks declaring that they have been conducting reasonable search efforts.

This thread highlights one important thing: nobody should take legal advice from this forum.

[erin otoole]

1 hour ago, Pantalaimon said:

I wonder what happened to my (depressingly many) law school colleagues that claimed CERB even though we were in law school.

In 1L I had a comfy construction job lined up for the summer, lost my job and sat at home until I found another one. Person on the phone told me to claim CERB until I found a new job. Many of my friends at Windsor were the same. 

[CleanHands]

1 hour ago, Pantalaimon said:

I wonder what happened to my (depressingly many) law school colleagues that claimed CERB even though we were in law school.

I have a friend in Biglaw whose pro bono work has been mostly taking calls from people seeking legal advice because they claimed CERB while ineligible and are now being told by the government to pay it back (and there's no legal advice to give except "pay it pack").

The gov seemed to just hand out money to anyone who applied but they are looking over the books and going after people en masse now.

[Kibitzer]

35 minutes ago, Turtles said:

That's why that's not the policy. EI requirements are largely qualified by reasonableness and suitability, bringing in context, rather than absolute brightlines. This thread misses much of the nuance that does exist in EI policy. 

In relation to seasonal workers, ESDC explicitly tells claimants that the general obligation to seek suitable employment only requires them to seek suitable employment for the temporary period until they return to work for the start of next season's contract:  "Even if you have a job to return to in the spring/summer, you are still required to be willing to seek and accept temporary employment, conduct reasonable job search activities and document those activities for the duration of your claim." If such claimants take bona fide reasonable job search efforts to find suitable employment, then the fact employers aren't keen to take on a temporary worker is not a bar to EI, so long as they tried. The obligation is trying, not succeeding. 

It should go without saying non-seasonal claimants with a future contract date who would, genuinely, take suitable employment in the summer after articling, but are unable to because most suitable employers (e.g., big law compensation, for someone who articled in big law) will not hire someone of their level with a start date before the usual post-summer new associates start date, are not barred by the obligation to seek and acceptable suitable work simply because none exists. The obligation, again, is trying, not necessarily succeeding. But as raised by others, if someone isn't trying, then obviously they haven't satisfied the obligation on them to receive EI, and would be lying when they do reports every two weeks declaring that they have been conducting reasonable search efforts.

This thread highlights one important thing: nobody should take legal advice from this forum.

That was certainly my suspicion. As you said, much of this discussion seems to be folks saying its black and white when as with most things, it is not. 

[Mal]

On 3/18/2024 at 5:58 PM, BlockedQuebecois said:

That’s why I’m clarifying.

If @Mal agrees that applying for EI whilst not actively looking for work is EI fraud, it’s not clear to me why he said “EI fraud is overstating matters”. Unless he just didn’t understand the preceding conversation. 

This really isn’t a complex issue. If you are an articling student and your contract expires, you’re eligible for EI so long as you meet the usual requirements. That includes the requirement that you are actively looking for work and are ready to start immediately if you are offered a position.

If you apply for EI in circumstances where you are not actively looking for work – say, because you have accepted a hire back offer – you are committing EI fraud. 

Anyone suggesting otherwise is wrong, and their posts to that effect are reckless. The seasonal worker point is a red herring – just because seasonal workers routinely commit EI fraud by not looking for work during the offseason despite the requirement to do so does not mean that lawyers should do so as well. 

I was clear that you need to look for work.

You seem to be missing the point that there was nothing in the thread that says that the individual won't look for short-term work. That is an assumption you made in order to leap to "it is EI fraud". Is it really so hard to imagine an individual with an upcoming bay street job reaching out to former professors to help with academic research during the summer or other lawyers for a short-term project? 

[BlockedQuebecois]

@Mal seems like your concern was fully captured by my earlier comment, so I'm not sure why you decided to take issue with my post: 

On 3/18/2024 at 2:39 PM, BlockedQuebecois said:

None of that is to say that you shouldn't claim EI if you are eligible. If you are sincerely looking for work and ready and willing to start immediately if offered a position (as would be the case for almost everyone not hired back), you obviously should claim EI. 

In any event it sounds like you agree with me that it is EI fraud to claim EI in circumstances where you are not looking for work every day that you are unemployed and not ready and willing to accept any suitable employment offered to you, so all's well that ends well 🙂

Edited March 21 by BlockedQuebecois

[loonie]

58 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

@Mal seems like your concern was fully captured by my earlier comment, so I'm not sure why you decided to take issue with my post: 

In any event it sounds like you agree with me that it is EI fraud to claim EI in circumstances where you are not looking for work every day that you are unemployed and not ready and willing to accept any suitable employment offered to you, so all's well that ends well 🙂

Not involved in this, but this post is quite disingenuous. You are altering the scope of what you were claiming prior: that a hire-back offer excludes you from being able to claim EI because of a misconception that these people would not be able to actively search for temporary suitable work. It was clearly based off you believing that they would need to be applying to other full-time permanent jobs (not temporary during their off-season) and have to accept them immediately afterwards, which would conflict with their existing contracts. 

Also, you do not need to be looking for work "every day" you are unemployed -- the reasonableness requirement is likely satisfied as long as every two weeks the report you are required to provide is, hence, reasonable. It is also very unlikely that someone is able to find such a temporary position and succeeding to do so is not necessary. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

1 minute ago, loonie said:

Not involved in this, but this post is quite disingenuous. You are altering the scope of what you were claiming prior: that a hire-back offer excludes you from being able to claim EI because of a misconception that these people would not be able to actively search for temporary suitable work. It was clearly based off you believing that they would need to be applying to other full-time permanent jobs (not temporary during their off-season) and have to accept them immediately afterwards, which would conflict with their existing contracts. 

I am sorry you were left with that impression, but I never claimed that a hire-back offer excludes you from being able to claim EI and it's unreasonable to read such a view into my posts. 

I was quite clear that "it seems unlikely you would satisfy the requirements that you are actively looking for work and are able to start immediately if offered a position". The reason I consider that unlikely is because big law students with hireback offers do not typically spend their summer looking for work. 

Even if it were reasonable to read that view into my posts, I think any confusion on your part really ought to have been resolved when I stated "If you are sincerely looking for work and ready and willing to start immediately if offered a position (as would be the case for almost everyone not hired back), you obviously should claim EI."

10 minutes ago, loonie said:

Also, you do not need to be looking for work "every day" you are unemployed -- the reasonableness requirement is likely satisfied as long as every two weeks the report you are required to provide is, hence, reasonable. It is also very unlikely that someone is able to find such a temporary position and succeeding to do so is not necessary. 

The Government of Canada disagrees with you: "You must be looking for a job every day that you are receiving regular or fishing benefits." 

[loonie]

11 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I am sorry you were left with that impression, but I never claimed that a hire-back offer excludes you from being able to claim EI and it's unreasonable to read such a view into my posts. 

I was quite clear that "it seems unlikely you would satisfy the requirements that you are actively looking for work and are able to start immediately if offered a position". The reason I consider that unlikely is because big law students with hireback offers do not typically spend their summer looking for work. 

Even if it were reasonable to read that view into my posts, I think any confusion on your part really ought to have been resolved when I stated "If you are sincerely looking for work and ready and willing to start immediately if offered a position (as would be the case for almost everyone not hired back), you obviously should claim EI."

The Government of Canada disagrees with you: "You must be looking for a job every day that you are receiving regular or fishing benefits." 

Apologies. Looking back, I believe I misinterpreted the following quote in an above post (emphasis added): 

"If you apply for EI in circumstances where you are not actively looking for work – say, because you have accepted a hire back offer – you are committing EI fraud. 

Anyone suggesting otherwise is wrong, and their posts to that effect are reckless. The seasonal worker point is a red herring – just because seasonal workers routinely commit EI fraud by not looking for work during the offseason despite the requirement to do so does not mean that lawyers should do so as well." 

I took it as you saying that accepting a hire-back offer automatically presupposes one is committing EI fraud, but I can see that you were now likely suggesting that it would, instead, incentivize one from not actively searching for work.