Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
taxi drivers |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant took a taxi driver’s course on a part-time basis from September to November 1992. He did not disclose this information because he had a wife and child, and needed his unemployment insurance benefits. BOR found that as of 15 03-93, the claimant could control his working hours and was therefore not unemployed. FCA found that the claimant’s praiseworthy efforts to take retraining and to support his family did not exempt us from the obligation to apply the UI Act.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
availability for work |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant admitted to not having disclosed the fact that he was taking a taxi driver’s course on a full-time basis, because he had a wife and child and needed his unemployment benefits. A penalty was imposed on him for not declaring his non-availability. FCA found that the claimant’s praiseworthy efforts to take retraining and to support his family did not exempt us from the obligation to apply the UI Act.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
courses of study |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant admitted to not having disclosed the fact that he was taking a taxi driver’s course on a full-time basis, because he had a wife and child and needed his unemployment benefits. A penalty was imposed on him for not declaring his non-availability. FCA found that the claimant’s praiseworthy efforts to take retraining and to support his family did not exempt us from the obligation to apply the UI Act.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant admitted to not having disclosed the fact that he was taking a taxi driver’s course on a full-time basis, because he had a wife and child and needed his unemployment benefits. A penalty was imposed on him for not declaring his non-availability. FCA found that the claimant’s praiseworthy efforts to take retraining and to support his family did not exempt us from the obligation to apply the UI Act.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
courses |
purpose of the legislation |
|
Summary:
Claiamnt took a taxi-driver’s course on a part-time basis, but did not disclose this information because he had a wife and child, and needed his unemployment insurance benefits. BOR upheld the Commission’s decision that no benefits could be paid to the claimant because he was taking a course to which he had not been referred. FCA found that the claimant’s praiseworthy efforts to take retraining and to support his family did not exempt us from the obligation to apply the UI Act.