Decision A-0451.85

Summary:

As I read s. 14, it clearly prevents benefits from being paid to persons who have not proven their availability for work and their inability to find suitable work or their unavailability by reason of prescribed illness or injury.

---

Summary:

Since the remand to the Penetanguishene Hospital had neither a custodial or a punitive objective, how can an institution which is clearly a hospital and which treated claimant as one suspected of being ill be said to be a prison-like institution? It is irrelevant whether the Penetanguishene Hospital is part of a penitentiary complex. No less a hospital simply because situated beside a penitentiary. The correct test to apply is: what is the reason, purpose or object of the confinement? A person can be an inmate of a prison or similar institution only if the institution is in truth a prison or similar institution: that must be the nature of the institution itself. Being a patient in hospital on remand and confined against his will not conclusive. [Ryan J.] S. 32 clearly contemplates a gaol, penitentiary (as described in 7(2)(b)) or any other institution having a general likeness to a prison. In the scheme of the legislation, a bona fide hospital is not an institution similar to a prison.

---

Summary:

Clearly, former s. 32 had much wider parameters than present. The change in the language used is clearly purposive and must be presumed to have some significance.

---

Summary:

The words must be read in their entire context [s. 32] and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme, the object and the intention of the Act. Part I is entitled UI Benefits and encompasses s. 5 to 44.

---

Summary:

A word in a statute is a cell within an organism, an incomplete structure within a more complete one, and can be fully understood only in relation to the whole of which it is a constituent part. [Justice MacGuigan] The words must be read in their entire context [s. 32] and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme, the object and the intention of the Act. Part I is entitled UI Benefits and encompasses s. 5 to 44.

---

Summary:

It is argued he should be given the benefit of provincial legislation specifying that a person remanded to a mental health facility is a patient. This is a definition for purposes of that legislation and does not apply to a different term in different legislation with a different purpose. [p.56]

---

Summary:

The circumstances described in 7(2)(a),(b),(c) and (d) have a common rationale. They all envisage a factual scenario in which the applicant is not available for employment through external circumstances beyond his or her control. [Heald J., p. 9]

---