It isn't. You can see that from the fact that the Hall coefficient depends on the magnitude of the field components perpendicular to the field, while electromagnetic induction only depends on the rate of change. Why should it be so, if the Hall effect caused the induction? Also, induction can happen anywhere, even in vacuum, whereas the Hall effect happens in conductors (well, it also happens in other kinds of media, but the point remains that it is related to the material). If the former were caused by the latter, it shouldn't happen in situations in which the effect isn't present, and it should become more and more relevant whenever the Hall effect becomes important.
Another point, somewhat more subtle, is that, while quantum mechanics is needed for any satisfactory explanation of the Hall effect, it is, as far as I know, perfectly consistent with the semiclassical approximation, in which the electromagnetic fields are classical. Thus, it makes sense within the framework of Maxwell's theory, in which electromagnetic induction is very fundamental, for it is a very direct consequence of Maxwell equations. By proving it, one is basically proving one or two of those equations. But then, how did you get the fields in the first place? You need a magnetic field in the region from the start. How do you produce it? When you measure it, what calculations are you making? What about the electric field? The point is, you are going to assume Maxwell's theory at some point (or some more fundamental theory, but in that case it has to explain the Maxwell equations). So the Hall effect couldn't offer a satisfactory explanation for induction, for any such argument must be circular.