Law360 Canada ( May 19, 2021, 6:24 AM EDT) -- Application by the Attorney General for judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal determining that the respondent was entitled to Employment Insurance benefits during the summer break in the 2017-2018 school year. From November 2017 to February 2018, the respondent taught the same class for one hour per day replacing a teacher on sick leave. For the second semester commencing in February 2018, the respondent obtained a new employment contract. Two letters from the School Board conflicted as to the respondent’s employment. One letter indicated she was to be employed until the end of Semester 2, while the other letter indicated that she would only be engaged until the permanent teacher returned. In June 2018, she accepted a contract for a full-time permanent teaching position for the 2018-2019 school year. The respondent applied for Employment Insurance benefits for the 2018 summer break. The Employment Insurance Commission determined the respondent was not entitled to benefits during that period since her contract of employment for teaching had not terminated and her employment in teaching was on a casual or substitute basis. The Appeal Division based its decision to allow the respondent’s appeal on its finding that the General Division failed to consider the respondent’s evidence that she considered her contract to be day-to-day and that her contract could be terminated by the return of the teacher she was replacing. The Appeal Division concluded that the respondent was employed as a substitute teacher and, therefore, met the requirements of the exception in s. 33(2)(b) of the Regulations for employment in teaching on a casual or substitute basis....