Client satisfaction survey – July to September 2020

General Division (Employment Insurance and Income Security) and Appeal Division survey results

Overall satisfaction: 93%

Appeal type Satisfaction Response rate Participants
Employment Insurance (EI) 95%   95% 67%   67% 174
Income Security (IS) 90%   90% 32%   32% 89
Appeal Division (AD) 90%   90% 32%   32% 18

Were forms, letters and emails easy to understand?

Employment Insurance Income Security Appeal Division Combined
96% 94% 100% 96%   96%
  • Although respondents overall strongly agreed with the readability of the Tribunal’s correspondence, comments from the remaining few cited difficulties related to limited internet access, computer illiteracy, a high volume of documents received, and confusion with acronyms (for example, EI Commission)

Comments

  • “The information from the Tribunal was sufficient, I understood.” (Appellant, IS)
  • “I found most of all correspondence easy to understand except on the legislative part.” (EI)
  • [Translation] “Overall, they were easy to understand, but there were French mistakes in some of the documents.” (Representative, EI)

Before the hearing, did you know what to expect and how to prepare?

Employment Insurance Income Security Appeal Division Combined
90% 84% 89% 88%   88%
  • Most representatives and appellants agreed that they felt prepared going into the hearing
  • Respondents that did not feel prepared commented:
    • a lack of guidance from the Tribunal to understand documents and procedures
    • a lack of knowledge of whom to ask for help
    • difficulty navigating the website

Comments

  • “I was well prepared for the hearing, and I did not get any unexpected surprise.” (EI)
  • “I could have been better prepared for the hearing. I had a language problem, also difficulties to understand some of the legal terms that required me to search them with Google, and I was scared when I came into the hearing.” (Appellant, EI)

Were you able to participate fully, for example: answer questions, correct errors and explain your case?

Employment Insurance Income Security Appeal Division Combined
98% 94% 94% 96%   96%
  • 96% of respondents agreed that they were able to meaningfully participate thanks in part to the cooperation and fairness of Tribunal members and Navigators
  • A few respondents commented that they encountered technical difficulties, and lacked understanding of hearing proceedings

Comments

  • “I was presented with an opportunity to speak, respond and present my case.” (AD)
  • [Translation] “I shared only 75 percent of my ideas because I couldn’t access the hearing due to technical difficulties, which caused major stress right before the hearing.” (EI)

Did the Tribunal handle your appeal quickly?

Employment Insurance Income Security Appeal Division Combined
95% 82% 89% 91%   91%
  • Respondents overall agreed the Tribunal handles appeals quickly, and acknowledged that, considering the ongoing pandemic, the Tribunal processes their case in a timely manner

Comments

  • [Translation] “I am extremely happy, even surprised, with how quickly the Tribunal processed my appeal.” (EI)
  • “I am extremely happy on how quick my appeal was processed.” (EI)

Were you happy with the form of hearing?

pie chart of teleconference and zoom percentages
Text version
  • Form of hearing: Teleconference (83%), Zoom (17%)
  • Happy with Teleconference: Yes (93%), No (7%)
  • Recommend Zoom hearing to others?: Yes (100%)
  • Some respondents experienced connection issues via Zoom, and would have preferred a hearing in person
  • However, given the current situation some respondents appreciated not having to travel to a location, and were satisfied with their participation using teleconference or Zoom

Comments

  • [Translation] “The telephone hearing was adjourned 4 times; in the end, I sent in written submissions. I strongly encourage your efforts to work with Zoom video hearings for people with disabilities. The justice you try to represent at the SST is honourable, and I congratulate you. Thank you so much.” (Representative, EI)
  • “We were doing the video conference from a rural area. We had difficulties to do the video conference but it was cleared later.” (Appellant, EI)

Did you visit the website? Was it easy to find what you were looking for?

pie chart of visits to Tribunal website
Text version
  • Visited Tribunal’s website?: Yes (67%), No (33%)
  • Easy to find what you were looking for?: Yes (89%), No (11%)
  • Those who did not visit the Tribunal’s website were appellants evenly split between EI and IS
  • They remarked that they were not aware of the website, did not have access to a computer or the internet, or had all the necessary paperwork
  • Suggestions of what the website could highlight were: second-level appeals, decisions arranged by subject not file number, similar cases

Comments

  • “Did not know there was one.” (Appellant, IS)
  • “Never thought to, I had all the paper work.” (Representative, IS)
  • “Didn't need to thanks to my navigator.” (Appellant, IS)

Was your Navigator helpful in getting you ready for your hearing?

19 navigated and 4 control group appellants responded to the survey in Quarter 2. The limited data show:

  • 18 appellants found that their Navigator was helpful in getting them ready for the hearing
  • 89% of navigated appellants and 3 of the 4 control group appellants were satisfied with their experience
  • Despite the help of a Navigator some appellants expressed a lack of satisfaction about certain aspects of their proceeding, specifically lack of preparation before the hearing, readability of documents, and meaningful participation in the hearing

Comments

  • “My navigator was great. She called me at least once a week.” (Appellant, IS)
  • “I had 2 actually. They were both very helpful.” (Appellant, IS)
Date modified: